ANNAKUTTY Vs. PADMAVATHY AMMA AND ORS.

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 Section 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 Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure.

(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 Section 103(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. Section 11(4)(i) excluding the proviso and the Explanations reads as follows:

(3.) ONE more point was submitted for consideration by the Petitioner's counsel. According to him pending the revision petition before the District Court the landlord transferred the building to a stranger and the stranger has come forward to implead himself as an additional Respondent in the revision. According to the Petitioner's counsel Section 22 of the Rent Control Act extends the provisions of Section 146 and Order XXII Code of Civil Procedure only in so far as those provisions relate to legal representatives of deceased party. It is too much to limit the scope of Section 22 by reading the marginal note in that section. The Section clearly provides that the provisions of Section 146 and Order XXII Code of Civil Procedure shall as far as possible applies to those proceedings. Both Section 146 and Order XXII, Rule 10 enables a transferee of a property to come forward and proceed with the action from the stage at which it was at the time of assignment. The right to apply on the ground of subletting is not something personal to the landlord as in the case of a ground for bona fide use. If the tenant has violated the provisions of Section 11(4)(i) a right is obtained by the landlord and that right is transferable just like any other right along with the possession of the property by this transfer. In this view I do not find any substance in the Petitioner's contention in this point. There is no other point for consideration.