LAKSHMI PRINTING WORKS Vs. KUNHUNNI VELLODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The family of the respondent in the revision petition owned the building now in possession of the revision petitioner, Lakshmi Printing House, Kozhikode represented by its managing partner. There was a vacant site measuring 15' x 20' in front of the press building. Some time prior to the commencement of the present proceedings there was a move by Subhadra Kovilamma, the manager of the tavazhi of the first respondent to make some improvements to the adjacent building owned by the tavazhi by providing a second floor. The petitioner apprehended that the new construction would obstruct his access to the printing press. A suit for injunction was therefore filed by the petitioner against the tavazhi of the first respondent restraining the tavazhi from interfering with his right of ingress and egress to the printing press. The matter was compromised. Subsequently there was a partition in the family of the first respondent and the concerned property wherein the press is situated and the adjoining property were allotted to the share of the first respondent. The first respondent wanted to raise the adjacent building so that he could also construct rooms in the upstair portion of the land lying in front of the press building, which was the subject-matter of the suit for injunction. On 10th April, 1969 the petitioner and the first respondent entered into an agreement, which is evidenced by Ext. A-1. Under the terms of the agreement the first respondent was to put up concrete pillars with overhead slabs and girders in the property measuring 25 ft. x 20 ft. lying in front of the Lakshmi Printing House Building. He was to have rooms in the upstairs portion of the structure. The petitioner was to enclose the area in the ground floor by constructing walls in between the concrete pillars and to convert them into rooms. The petitioner undertook to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 35/- for the use of the enclosed premises. The rent was to be paid from the date of completion of the walls or on the expiry of six months from the date of putting up of the pillars and the concrete slabs by the first respondent, whichever was earlier. The petitioner also undertook to compensate the first respondent for the property tax payable to the Municipal Corporation, in respect of the constructed structure. The expenses for the construction was not to exceed Rs. 10,000/- and the same was to be compensated by the respondent at the time of the surrender of the premises. According to the first respondent the construction of the wall was completed and rooms were formed by about 1.11.1969. The petitioner thereafter subleased one of the rooms to the second respondent. There was, however, failure to pay the rent stipulated in Ext. A-1. A notice was therefore sent by the first respondent to the petitioner claiming eviction of the building on the ground of arrears of rent and sub-letting, under Section 11(2) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - for short the Act. On refusal by the petitioner to surrender the building R.C.O.P. No. 197 of 1971 was filed before the Munsiff I Kozhikode for eviction.

(2.) The petitioner admitted that he had given one of the rooms on lease to the second respondent; but he denied that it was by way of sub-lease. According to him, as per the terms of the agreement the lease was in respect of the land measuring 25 ft. x 20 ft. and not in respect of any building and therefore the provisions of the Act did not apply to the transaction. Since the building belonged to him he was entitled to lease it out to the second respondent and the lease would not amount to a sub-lease coming under the purview of the Act. The petitioner also denied that there were arrears of rent. In case he was to surrender the premises he claimed that he was entitled to get Rs. 4,472.65 being the amount spent by him for the construction of the building. The second respondent, the alleged sub-lessee also contested the petition and claimed that he was not liable to be evicted.

(3.) The Rent Control Court overruled the contention of the petitioner that the lease was in respect of the land adjoining to his press. The Rent Control Court held that the structure that was leased was a building coming under the purview of the Act. It was also held that there were arrears of rent and a sub-lease in favour of the second respondent. But, according to the Rent Control Court, the terms of Ext. A1 permitted him to lease out the rooms and as such the petitioner was not liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(1) of the Act. The petition was allowed directing eviction under Section 11(2) only.