ANNAKUTTY Vs. PADMAVATHY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third counter petitioner in a rent control proceeding is the revision petitioner. The Rent Control Court, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court concurred in finding that a part of the leasehold has been sublet by the tenant to the second counter petitioner which entitles the landlord to apply for eviction under S.11(4)(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is this decision that is challenged in this revision petition filed under S.115 Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Two grounds were urged by the petitioner's counsel in support of this revision. Firstly it was contended that on the finding of the Subordinate Tribunals that a portion of the tenancy has been sublet to the second counter petitioner, the applicability of S.108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act has been ignored or has been overlooked by the Subordinate Tribunals in ordering eviction. In other words normally a tenant is entitled to sublease or sublet and in the absence of any prohibition in the rent deed it is open to the tenant to sublet or transfer possession. That will not entitle the landlord to terminate the tenancy or get possession of the lease hold. S.11(4)(i) excluding the proviso and the Explanations reads as follows: -

(3.) The next point argued in support of the revision petition is that the evidence let in this case is insufficient to hold that the tenant has sublet a portion of the building to the second counter petitioner. According to the petitioner's counsel all the Tribunals have come to this conclusion only on the basis of a cash bill Ext. A-7 said to have been issued by the second counter petitioner to P.W. 2 the driver of P.W.1. No doubt this Ext. A-7 is denied by the second counter petitioner. But in the light of the evidence of P.W. 2 that has been accepted by the subordinate Tribunals. It may not be open to this Court to re-examine the evidence regarding the genuineness of Ext. A-7. We have to take it that Ext. A-7 was issued by the second counter petitioner to P.W. 2. Ext. A-7 shows that as proprietor the second counter petitioner is doing a business in this building and for some service charges he has issued that bill. Apart from Ext. A-7 the landlord has proved a number of other factors in this case for proving that the second counter petitioner is in exclusive possession of a portion of the building. In that connection the respondent's counsel relied on the fact that a notice issued before the rent control proceeding was accepted at the address of this building by the second respondent.