K R SASIDHARAN Vs. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ALIAS ASHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is in revision. He challenges the order of eviction on the ground of cessation of occupation under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. It was contended that the petition schedule building was leased out to the revision petitioner for sale of Ayurvedic medicine. THE RCP was filed on 21/10/05. According to the landlord, the tenant ceased to occupy the petition schedule building for more than six months without any reasonable cause and thus, he claimed eviction.

(2.) THE tenant resisted the petition contending that from 25/10/05 to 28/10/05 he was laid up due the abdominal disorder and that was the reason why the shop remained closed. It was contended that when the Advocate Commissioner inspected the shop room tyres, tubes and other waste materials were happened to be seen on the Verandah since he was absent during those days as he was ill. THE allegation made by the landlord that the petition schedule building was ceased to be occupied for more than six months was denied by the tenant.

(3.) IT was submitted that the Advocate Commissioner visited the property only on 28/10/05 after six days of the filing of the RCP and so there is no evidence to show that as on the date of filing of the RCP, the building remained closed. But in this connection it was pointed out that when a notice was sent to the tenant in May, 2005 the notice could not be served on the revision petitioner even though effort to serve the notice was made by the postman on four or five days, since he was not available to be served in that address. Again when the notice/summons was issued from the court directing his appearance in the court in the RCP, then also the summons could not be served on the revision petitioner as the petition schedule building was seen to be locked. IT is in these circumstances the observations made by the Advocate Commissioner have to be analysed.