P S JOSE Vs. KAVILE VALAPPIL MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the revision petitioner and he challenges in this revision the order of eviction passed against him concurrently by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of cessation of occupation. THE defence of the revision petitioner to the allegation of the landlord that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building and he is not conducting any activity in the petition schedule building and much less the activity of jewellery work to conduct which the building was leased out to him was one of the total denial. THE evidence consisted of Ext.C1 report submitted by the Commissioner on the basis of a local inspection which was completed by the Commissioner in two days apart from Exts.A1 to A3(c), B1 to B3 and the oral evidence of PW1 the power of attorney holder of the landlord and the evidence of RW1, the tenant. THE Advocate Commissioner who submitted Ext.C1 report was examined as CW1. THE learned Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence held that the eviction ground of cessation of occupation under Section 11(4)(v) was established in the case and accordingly ordered eviction. THE Appellate Authority on considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner made a re-appraisal of the evidence and concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

(2.) IN this revision filed under Section 20 the revision petitioner has raised grounds challenging the findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Sri.M.V.Amaresan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed elaborate submissions before us based on grounds. Drawing our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010(4) KLT SN 33) Sri.Amaresan submitted that the oral evidence given by PW1, the power of attorney holder for the landlord cannot have any probative value in this case as there was no case in the Rent Control Petition nor for PW1 that the landlord who filed the Rent Control Petition himself is not aware of the factum of cessation of occupation of the building by the tenant. Under such circumstances, the landlord alone was competent to adduce evidence to substantiate the allegations in the Rent Control Petition. Sri.Amaresan then submitted that on a reading of Ext.C1 report it will be seen that the Commissioner has not identified the subject building properly. It was some other building which was inspected by the Advocate Commissioner. It is relying solely on Ext.C1 that the learned Rent Control Court entered a finding that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months. The learned counsel submitted that the application submitted by the tenant for remitting the report back to the Commissioner for a fresh inspection was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Court. The above order despite challenge before the Appellate Authority was sustained by the Appellate Authority. This has resulted in serious prejudice to the revision petitioner. The blame placed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court on the tenant for not producing evidence is not justified as the activity conducted by the tenant in the petition schedule building is not capable of being proved by documentary evidence, so submitted Sri.Amaresan.

(3.) IT is the claim of the tenant that he has been continuously conducting his activity of jewellery works in the petition schedule building. The building is an electrified one. IT has a fan and a bulb. RW1 conceded that he has not been consuming any electricity in the petition schedule building. He has not been able to produce even a single document including the trade licence which is absolutely necessary for conducting any activity within the municipal area to support is claim that he has been continuously conducting his activity. The learned Appellate Authority rightly drew adverse inference against the appellant. When the revision petitioner asserts that he has not ceased to occupy the building and he has been continuously conducting business he had the burden to establish the same by adducing the best quality evidence. On an aspect which is capable of documentary evidence the petitioner should have adduced such evidence and should not have insisted that the authorities should accept his ipse dixit.