PINNANKANDIYIL SAMEER Vs. KURUNGOT KUNHABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground under Section 11(4)(v) (cessation of occupation without reasonable cause for more than six months continuously). The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not disputed. The definite defence taken by the tenant who is in Kuwait for quite some time is that the building is occupied as a godown for the footwear business which is being conducted by his father power of attorney holder examined as RW1. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of Exts.A1 to A7, C1 to C2 and the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 apart from the oral evidence of RW1. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the eviction ground under Section 11(4)(v) stood established and accordingly, ordered eviction. Though the tenant preferred appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Rent Control Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the evidence would concur with all the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) IN this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.C.Bhaskaran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. Sri.Bhaskaran submitted at the very outset that in all cases where eviction ground under Section 11(4)(v) is invoked the crucial evidence will be the report of the Commissioner. IN the instant case, there is a report by the Commissioner which is marked as Ext.C1. The above report is on the basis of surprise inspection conducted ex parte. The authorities below were not justified in relying on Ext.C1. Ext.C1 will not show that the building in question was not occupied by the tenant continuously for six months immediately prior to the institution of the RCP.

(3.) SRI.Bhaskaran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for one year's time to surrender the building. We will not be justified in granting so much of time without notice to the respondent. Hence, issue notice by speed post to the respondent to determine the extension of time to be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises. Post after service of notice. In the meanwhile, there will be a direction to the execution court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building for a period of one month from today.