POOLAKANDY MALAYIL VIJAYAN Vs. SAKEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision. An order of eviction was passed against him by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'), in reversal of the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction. Brief facts necessary for the case are as follows:

(2.) Before the Rent Control Court, the landlady's husband was examined as P.W.1 and Exts.A-1 to A-5 were marked. The commission report was marked as Ext.C-1. No evidence was adduced on the side of the revision petitioner. On evaluating the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller found that the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) is unsustainable. He has also found that the eviction petition is unsustainable in view of the fact that, the revision petitioner's brother Santhosh Kumar who is a co-owner, was not impleaded and that his concurrence has not been obtained. Thus, the Rent Control Petition was dismissed.

(3.) In the appeal, the learned Appellate Authority found that since action for eviction can be instituted by one of the co-owners, the petition is maintainable. It was found that though the revision petitioner is also a co-owner of the petition schedule building, since there was no determination of the tenancy, he continues to be the tenant and as such, the petition is perfectly maintainable. It was also found that by removing the window panes, the value and utility of the building was materially and permanently reduced Hence the impugned order of eviction was passed against the revision petitioner.