MURALEEDHARAN NAIR Vs. VINAYAKAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two points that arise for consideration in this revision petition filed u/s 20 of Act 2 of 1965 are;

(2.) The alleged subtenant has filed this revision petition u/s 20 of Act 2 of 1965, challenging the order of eviction passed u/s 11 (4)(i) of the Act. The first respondent in this revision is the landlord. The 2nd respondent is the tenant. The petition schedule building was originally taken on rent by the 2nd respondent's father. On his death the 2nd respondent and the landlord executed Ext.A1, a fresh rent deed on 1.6.00. The first respondent/landlord alleged that the 2nd respondent/tenant sublet the petition schedule building to the revision petitioner without his consent. Demanding termination of sub tenancy notice was issued by the landlord to the tenant as required under the proviso to Section 11(4)(i). Contending that subtenancy was not terminated, the petition was filed.

(3.) The tenant/2nd respondent remained exparte. The revision petitioner, the alleged sub-tenant, alone filed counter contending that there was no subtenancy as alleged by the landlord. It was contended that the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent along with two others entered into a partnership under the name and style 'Geetha Traders' with effect from 1-4-2000 for which necessary permissions, registration and sanctions were obtained. It was contended that 'Geetha Traders' is the actual tenant in possession of the petition schedule building. It was also contended that the landlord is residing in the building adjacent to the petition schedule shop room and he used to visit the petition schedule shop room regularly and thus he had acquiesced in the revision petitioner occupying the premises and since there was acquiescence the landlord is not entitled to get an order of eviction u/s 11(4)(i). It was also contended that it was in fact the partnership firm which was paying rent to the landlord. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties the Rent Control Court found against the case of sublease pleaded by the landlord and thus dismissed the petition.