ABDUL RAHIMAN KUNJU Vs. RENT CONTROL REVISIONAL AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a tenant of a building owned by the 5th respondent who sought eviction on the ground of rent arrears, bona fide need for own occupation and sublease. The rent control court allowed the petition on all the grounds. On appeal the appellate authority modified the order and granted relief only on the ground of sublease. The revisional court refused to interfere. Hence this O.P.

(2.) The building is alleged to have been entrusted to the 6th respondent on the strength of a lease deed. Petitioner was stated to be the sublessee. Sixth respondent remained ex parte. Petitioner alone contested the rent control petition. He denied the sublease alleged in the petition and contended that he alongwith the 6th respondent, had taken the shop room for conducting business jointly. The lease deed is alleged to have been executed for and on behalf of petitioner also. He further contended that rent was paid by him since the date of commencement of tenancy, and that he was in continuous occupation since then.

(3.) The rent control court on a proper consideration of the evidence adduced on both sides came to the conclusion that the case set up by petitioner was not true and that he is inoccupation as a sublessee. The appellate authority concurred with this finding. The revisional court did not see any irregularity or impropriety in this finding and refused to interfere. The findings of the revisional court and the authorities below are challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the relief was granted on an erroneous interpretation of the law. The contention is that the landlord has failed to establish exclusive possession with petitioner and transferred for consideration. Considerable reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Leela v. Ali & others ( 1982 KLT 685 ). On the other hand, it is the contention of 5th respondent landlord that exclusive possession and transfer for consideration had been proved and the ingredients of S.11(4)(i) of the Rent Control Act has been established. Before considering the facts of the casein order to ascertain whether the order of the rent control court and the appellate authority are perverse or unreasonable and whether there is any impropriety or irregularity or illegality in such order or proceeding, it is appropriate to refer to the judicial pronouncements on this aspect.