MARY Vs. KUNJANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Rent Controller dismissed the petition under S.11(2)(b) and allowed the petition under S.11(3). Order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Hence this revision by the tenant.

(2.) For the purpose of disposal of this matter we may refer to the parties according to the status in the Rent Control Petition. Petition schedule premises was let out to the husband of the first respondent Mary as per lease deed executed on 18.3.1970 by the petitioners and second respondent. The period of tenancy was terminated on 18.3.1973. Petition schedule premises is on the ground floor of a two - storied building. In the upstair portion the petitioners are conducting business by name Varghese Watch Company. On the death of the husband of the respondent, she is occupying the ground floor of the premises. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of the first petitioner and petitioners 5, 6 and 7 are the legal heirs of Varghese, the deceased son of the first petitioner. Sixth petitioner who is the son of deceased Varghese is now doing watch repair works in the Varghese Watch Company. He is dependant on the first petitioner. While the Rent Control Petition was pending he got married. He wanted to start a business of his own. Petitioners have no other building of their own for starting business. First petitioner directed the tenant to vacate the premises. A registered notice was sent on 31.3.1989 since she did not vacate to which the tenant replied. Rent Control Petition was then preferred under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) Tenant resisted the petition. It was stated that the petition schedule premises was taken on lease by the husband of the first respondent for starting a partnership business by name C.L. Joseph & Company. Partnership was dissolved on 18.3.1970. After dissolution of partnership the husband of the first respondent had executed another rent deed on 18.3.1970. On the death of the husband of the first respondent, the first respondent is in occupation of the premises on the same terms and conditions of the original lease deed. It was contended that apart from the first respondent other heirs of Varghese have also got interest in the tenanted premises. Petition filed without joining them in the array of parties is not maintainable. Further it was stated that the 6th petitioner is also working in a watch company by name Chirayath Watch Company. Though he has married he has got income to support his family. Further it was stated that an earlier petition RCP 87/73 was filed for eviction of the tenant and that application was dismissed. It was contended there was no change of circumstance warranting another petition for eviction. On 29.11.1990 first respondent filed additional objection stating as follows: