JANAB M.P. AZAD Vs. FATHIMA SAROHINI SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS litigation centres around a building situate in the city of Trivendrum. It is in such a proximity to the Secretariat that the landlord described it as situate within the heart of the City. It is on the main road and close to the Statute Junction. A hotel and restaurant is run in that building. The business is styled Azad Hotel, probably after the tenant, M.P. Azad, who figures as the petitioner in this revision petition. The landlord who initiated the legal proceeding is now no more. His legal representatives who had been impleaded while the matter was pending in revision before the District Court, Trivandrum are the respondents herein.

(2.) THE litigation has had already its upward tour once, from the Rent Controller, Trivandrum to the Supreme Court of India. It has come up again for consideration before this Court, and in a revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C.

(3.) THE Rent Controller ordered eviction, holding that there was sub-letting. In appeal the appellate authority felt that a case of sub-letting had not been made out but that an assignment of lease had been so made out. The reviction was confirmed, although on a basis different from what was accepted by the Rent Controller. There had been adverse findings against the landlord also on his contentions like 'own occupation' and 'arrears of rent'. This led to revision petitions being filed by both the landlord and the tenant. The revisional authority decided in favour of the tenant. It interfered in revision under Section 20 of the Act. It took the view that the son of the tenant was only looking after the father's business and that he was not in exclusive possession of the building. According to the Revisional Court, the father could not, in those circumstances, be said to have parted with all his rights. The landlord took the matter in further revision before this Court, in C.R.P. No. 1409 of 1979. This Court set aside the order of the District Court and directed both revisions to be heard afresh. In paragraph 4 this Court observed "that the matter will have to go back to the District Court at least as regard the questions of sub-letting transfer". Other points were not examined in that view of the matter. In paragraph 6 of its order, this Court posed the real question to be considered by the revisional Court. It reads as follows :- "I consider that the approach made by the District Court is erroneous. The real question will be whether the father continues to have any interest in the occupancy right as a tenant, and not as father of some one else, if for all practical purposes, that some one else is the real person in occupation." The Revisional Court further cautioned to address itself as to the limited scope of the revisional authority under Section 20 of the Act.