VARGHESE ITTOOP Vs. JOSSIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in R.C.P.No. 133/99 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the landlord. The landlord, a retired Superintending Engineer filed the petition for eviction of the tenant from the scheduled premises on the grounds under S.11(3), S.11(4)(iii) and S.11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court by its order dated 4-11-2000 allowed eviction on the ground under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act and directed the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the scheduled premises to the landlord. The claims for eviction under S.11(3) and S.11(8) were rejected by the Rent Control Court. Aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act, the tenant preferred R.C.A.No. 14/2001 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. On a reappraisal of the evidence, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(2.) Though the petition was filed under S.11(3), S.11(8) and S.11(4)(iii) of the Act, the grounds under S.11(3) and S.11(8) do not survive for consideration since the Rent Control Court rejected those grounds and the landlord had not taken up the matter in appeal. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the orders of the authorities below directing the tenant to hand over possession of the scheduled premises to the landlord under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act can be sustained.

(3.) We heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent. Having heard the counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the orders under challenge warrant no interference by this court in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.