E.V. PARVATHY AMMAL Vs. S. VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of eviction passed against the petitioner out of his residential building at the hands of all the 3 lower authorities(Rent Controller,Appellate authority and revisional authority ),under section 11(3)of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Act 2 of 1965(which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act)the Revision Petition is filed by him under section 115 C.P.C.challenging the eviction on the ground that notice to quit is not proper and that he is not liable to be evicted by virtue of the provisions of sub -section(7)of section 11 of the Act.

(2.) THE building in question belonged origi­nally to the Puthiya Kovilagam of Kozhikode.In a suit for partition the building was set apart to the share of one Kunhambatty Thamburatti who was a member of the Kovilagam.She assigned the building to one Gupthan Namboodiripad,who in his turn assigned the same to the present respondent on 1st July 1963.While the partition suit was pending,all the properties of the Kovilagam were under the management of a court Receiver from 1939 to 1945.The res­pondent purchased the property for his own occupation.So,the respondent sent Ext.B -24 notice dated 19th August 1963 to the petitioner,who is in possession of the building as a lessee to vacate the premises as he required the building for his own occupation.The petitioner did hot vacate even after notice.Therefore the res­pondent again sent Ext.B -28 notice dated 8th October 1964 terminating the lease directing her to vacate the building within 15 days from the receipt of the notice.As the petitioner did not vacate as required,the respondent filed the peti­tion before the Rent Controller,Kozhikode on 16th November 1964 for eviction of the petitioner from the building under section 11(3)of the Act.The Rent Controller passed the order of eviction which was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority(Subordinate Judge ).The Revisional authority the District Judge,Kozhikode,also confirmed the order under revision,which was exercised by him on the strength of the provisions contained in section 20 of the Act.It is against that order of revision that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed to this court.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that she has been in possession of the building since June,1939,whereas the case of the respondent is that the oral lease was originally granted by the Kovilagom to the petitioner's brother one Venkiteswara Iyer and that the petitioner has been in possession on the strength of the original lease.The respondent set up the alleged oral lease beginning from 25th February 1944 in his notice Ext.B -28.With regard to the commencement of the lease,there is absolutely no reliable evidence on the petitioner's side.Section 11(7)omitting the irrelevant portion reads as follows: "A tenant,who has been in continuous occupation of a building from 1st April 1940 as a tenant shall not be liable to be evicted for bona fide occupation of the landlord or of the occupation by any member of his family depending on him."