MUKREERAKATH KHADEEJA Vs. KRISHNA JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants have filed this revision petition challenging the order of eviction passed by the learned Appellate Authority under S.11(4)(v) of the Act reversing the order of dismissal of the claim made by the Rent Control Court. The RCP was filed on 23/06/97. The landladies contended that the tenants ceased to occupy the petition schedule building for more than six months without any reasonable cause. The petition schedule building which was leased out to the tenants as per Ext. A1 rent deed is situated in the upstair portion of a building complex by name K.M.K Complex. The tenants are doing business under the name and style 'Mahima Fancy' in the adjacent building by name 'R.K. Complex'. Both buildings belong to the respondents. The petition schedule building was rented out to the tenants as per Ext. A1 to use it as a godown for the business conducted in 'Mahima Fancy'. A commission was taken out to inspect the petition schedule building. The Commissioner filed Ext. C1 report stating that the petition schedule building was not used for about one year. The very same commissioner was taken to the building after about ten months and then Ext. C2 report was filed.

(2.) Before the Rent Control Court, the first petitioner in the RCP was examined as PW 1 and the tenant and another witness were examined as RW 1 and RW 2. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW 1. On behalf of the tenant Exts. B1 to B8 series were marked. The learned Rent Controller found that the landladies could not establish that the tenant has ceased to occupy the petition schedule building continuously for six months just prior to the filing of the petition and hence, RCP was dismissed.

(3.) The learned Appellate Authority after re - appreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the tenants have ceased to occupy the petition schedule building without any reasonable cause and thus, ordered eviction under S.11(4)(v) of the Act.