CHANDRAMATHI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Original Petition under Art.227 of The Constitution.

(2.) The building in dispute belongs to the petitioner. This had been let out to the fourth respondent on a rental of Rs.35/-. The fourth respondent, according to the petitioner, subleased the building to the fifth respondent and therefore the petitioner moved the petition under S.11 of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act before the Rent Control Court for an order directing the fourth respondent to put the petitioner in possession of the building. Respondents 4 and 5, in their joint counter statement have stated that the sublease pleaded is not true. The building, though taken on lease by the fourth respondent under a koolikychit, was taken to house the business carried on by respondents 4 and 5 jointly or in any event in partnership. The Rent Control Court after considering the various aspects of the case has found that the subletting stands established and based on the said finding ordered eviction (vide Ext..P1 order). The appeal taken therefrom by respondents 4 and 5 was allowed by the appellate authority (vide Ext. P2). The revision taken therefrom by the petitioner was rejected by the District Court, by Ext. P3 which is under challenge in this O.P.

(3.) The petitioner originally had challenged this order by filing a revision petition under S.115 of the C.P.C. This revision petition was withdrawn in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai ( 1987 (1) KLT 53 (S.C.)) and this O.P. under Art.227 was later filed. This court admitted the same and ordered notice to the opposite side. That is how the matter is now before me.