SMITHA Vs. V KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions of moment which have substantial significance in the Rent Control law in the State are raised for consideration in this Revision Petition. Challenge is raised against concepts that have occupied the field fora fairly long period of time. Ideal law is the perfect and just law. The quest and the endeavour to achieve that must continue. That concepts have occupied the field for a long period of time is not, by itself sufficient reason to refuse to have a re-look at the law when serious doubts exist about the validity of such entrenched concepts. The questions are:

(2.) A brief reference to vital facts may be relevant. Tenancy is admitted. The landlord claimed eviction against the tenant under section 11(2)(arrears of rent), 11(4) (i) (contumacious sub-lease) and 11(4)(ii) (destructive and objectionable use of the premises). The alleged sub-tenant, admittedly the brother-in-law of the tenant, was arrayed as the second respondent in the proceedings before the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court rejected the claim both under section 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii). The claim under section 11(2) was allowed. Both the landlord and the tenant went before the Rent Control appellate authority with appeals. The tenant challenged the order of eviction under Section 11(2) whereas the landlord challenged the rejection of his claim under section 11(4)(i). The appellate authority, by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal of the tenant and set aside the order of eviction under section 11(2). The appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the landlord; reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court under section 11(4)(i) and directed eviction under Section 11(4)(i). There was no challenge raised before the appellate authority against the rejection of the claim by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(ii).

(3.) The landlord did not prefer any revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The tenant and the alleged sub-tenant together have preferred this Revision Petition. They advance a contention that the finding that there was contumacious and objectionable sub-lease/transfer of possession is legally and factually unsustainable and is liable to be vacated. It is further contended that the subordinate authorities have failed to consider the question whether the claim under Section 11(4)(i) is bonafide as insisted by Section 11(10) of the Act. The landlord in turn, though he has not preferred any revision petition (or cross objection in the revision petition filed by the tenant) against the setting aside of the order of eviction under Section 11(2) wants this Court in this revision petition to consider his claim for eviction under Section 11(2) and restore the order of eviction under Section 11(2) passed by the Rent Control Court.