JESSY Vs. ALEX EAPEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent filed R.C.P. No. 13 of 2010 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam against the second respondent under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The R.C.P. was filed on 20-1-2010. On 3-11-2011 the Rent Control Court passed an order under Section 12(3) of the Act stopping all further proceedings in the R.C.P. and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. That order was passed on the ground that the tenant failed to pay the admitted arrears of rent within the time stipulated therein. The first respondent/landlord filed E.P. No. 92 of 2012 to get delivery of the building. The Executing Court ordered delivery. At that juncture, on 23-5-2012, the petitioner, who is not a party to the proceedings, filed E.A. No. 169 of 2012 contending that she is an independent occupant of the petition schedule building and that she is not liable to be evicted. In the said application, the petitioner contended that she was put in possession of the building as a sublessee by the original tenant with the knowledge of the landlord on 19-4-2010. The petitioner also raised a contention that the landlord and the tenant colluded together and the order dated 3-11-2011 was passed as a result of such collusion. The landlord as well as the tenant filed objections to E.A. No. 169 of 2012.

(2.) No evidence was adduced by the petitioner in E.A. No. 169 of 2012 either to show that she was put in possession by the tenant as alleged or the landlord gave permission for creating such sublease. It was also not proved that the landlord ever knew of creation of any such sub-lease. The Executing Court held that the petitioner foiled to prove the case put forward by her. It was noticed by the Executing Court that the case before the Rent Control Court was hotly contested by the tenant. It was held that the circumstances are strong enough to suspect that the petitioner only wanted to delay the execution proceedings.

(3.) Challenging the order dated 21-6-2012 passed by the Executing Court, the petitioner filed R.C.R.P. No. 1 of 2012 before the District Court. The Revisional Court dismissed the revision as per the order dated 28-9-2012, which is under challenge in this O.P. (R.C.).