KALLYANI SULOCHANA Vs. SARADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first counter petitioner tenant in R. C. P. No. 15 of 1979 is the revision petitioner. The first respondent who was the petitioner in the said R C. P. instituted the proceedings under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') for eviction. Trial Court allowed eviction under S.11(2)(b) and refused the prayer under S.11(3) of the Act. First respondent preferred R. C. A. No. 5/1983 before the Appellate Authority, the Subordinate Judge. The appeal was allowed. Revision petitioner tenant filed revision before the District Judge; that was dismissed. Against the order of the District Judge the revision petitioner filed revision under S.115 C. P. C. before this court as C. R. P. No. 1719 of 1985-G. One of us (Kalliath, J.) allowed the revision set aside the order of the District Judge and remanded the matter to the Trial Court.

(2.) After remand PW 2 was examined and Exts. C1 and C2 were marked on the first respondent's side; and the revision petitioner - tenant was examined as CPW 1. Rent Controller dismissed the petition. Against the said dismissal the first respondent preferred R. C. A. No. 40 of 1989 before the District Judge, Kollam; that was allowed. This revision is directed against the said order of the District Judge.

(3.) The property in which the petition schedule shed is situated was obtained by respondents 1 and 2 as per a partition in 1959. Second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. She executed Ext. A5 settlement by which she released her right in favour of the first respondent. First respondent's husband let out the petition schedule shed to the deceased husband the revision petitioner as per Ext. A1 rent deed. The petitioner alleged that rent was paid only up to September 1976. She also contended, the shed has been demolished for the convenience and security of her residence. Revision petitioner denied the allegation of arrears of rent from October 1976 and maintained that rent till December 1978 was paid to the second respondent the mother of the first respondent. She also contended that her deceased husband obtained lease of the land for constructing shed and constructed the same; she claimed benefit under S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1/1964). She denied the need alleged by the first respondent. Second respondent, mother of the first respondent in her objection questioned the validity of Ext. A5. She maintained that Ext. A5 did not take effect and denied the need alleged by the petitioner.