LELA Vs. ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) More than a quarter of a century ago, B. M. Lela became a tenant under Puthiya Kottal Ali under a rent deed executed on 16-4-1956, Ext. A1, stipulating a monthly rent of Rs, 85 for the building. Later, he took on rent the car shed of the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 10, B. M. Lela died in 1965 leaving behind him his widow and six children, of whom Balakrishna B. Lela appears to be the eldest. The legal representatives of the deceased tenant continued occupation of the building. The landlord initiated eviction proceedings on ground of sublease and the authorities below granted eviction. These orders are challenged in revision petition wherein the landlord is the 1st respondent.

(2.) According to the landlord, one Rama Rao was inducted into a portion of the leased building and a sublease in his favour was so created This creation of the subtenancy without his consent and in the absence of an enabling provision in the rent deed afforded a ground for eviction of the tenants under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A lawyer's notice was caused to be issued on 14-10-1977, Ext. A2, purporting to intimate all the legal representatives of the deceased tenant but actually issued in an envelope containing only the address of the first named therein with the direction that the notice should be shown to the other legal representatives also. The request not having been responded to, the petition for eviction (O. P. R. C. 7 of 1978) was filed by the landlord. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 as figuring therein are the children of deceased B. M. Lela and the 4th respondent is his widow. Out of these respondents, counter was filed on be half, of respondents Nos. 1 and 4 to 7,

(3.) The tenants raised various contentions. According to them, there were two entrustment and consequently two causes of action; there was no proper notice, the notice having been issued only to one among the several legal representatives; there was no sublease as understood in law. Rama Rao, the 8th respondent, was a close relative of the wife of respondent No. 1 and an intimate friend of the 1st respondent. On his transfer to Calicut, the 8th respondent could not pitch upon an accommodation immediately, A temporary accommodation was given to Rama Rao at a time he and his family were stranded in the City without accommodation. The 8th respondent had no possession of the building; he had only the rights of a licensee as one permitted to have the use of the building. The 8th respondent, after a short stay, vacated the building in November, 1977 within one month of the receipt of Ext. A2 notice and long before the filing of the Rent Control Petition. The 8th respondent later shifted his residence to Tirurangadi, to which place he was transferred later. Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 have, therefore, not violated S.11(4)(i) of the Act and consequently an eviction under that Section was without jurisdiction.