SURENDRAN Vs. SAFIYA BEEBI UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. R. P. Nos. 1786, 1888 and 1930/2002 are filed by the respondents in R. C. P. No. 12/95 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Tellicherry. C. R. P. No. 2866/2001 is filed by the landlord who was the petitioner in the above Rent Control Petition.

(2.) THE landlord filed a petition for eviction under S. 11 (3), 11 (4) (i) and 11 (4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). According to the landlord, the petition schedule building belongs to her and it was leased out to the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition as per registered kychit on a monthly rent of Rs. 175/- on 13. 9. 1963. Respondents 2 and 3 in the R. C. P are the sub tenants and first respondent sub leased portions of the building to them with the consent of the then landlord. Without consent of the landlord first respondent sub leased a portion of the building to 4th respondent. It was also alleged that respondents 1 to 3 are not doing any business in the plaint schedule building. THE rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 275/ -. It is averred that petitioners son Muhammed Ali is not having any avocation. He wants to start hotel business in the plaint schedule premises. He is depending on the landlord for the said purpose. It is alleged that the first respondent has got another building nearby wherein he conducts business and he is not using the petition schedule building for any purpose.

(3.) ON appeal the findings under S. 11 (3) (i) and 11 (4) (i) were confirmed but the finding under S. 11 (4) (iii) was set aside. Against the order of eviction passed under Ss. 11 (3) (i) and 11 (4) (i), all the three contesting respondents filed Revision Petitions and the landlord filed a Revision Petition against the finding regarding S. 11 (4) (iii ).