MUHAMMED Vs. PATHUMMAKUTTY UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent in R.C.P.No.10 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller, Perintalmanna, who is the tenant of the building involved in the case is the petitioner in the Original Petition.

(2.) There are 9 shop rooms in the building. The building originally belonged to Chettuvayi Muhammed and 4 others. It was entrusted to 1st respondent on a lease deed dated 16-3-1965 which stipulated a monthly rent of Rs.90/-. The document also provided that Rs.65/- will be paid to Pacheri Pathumma and two others towards interest on the mortgage and the balance of Rs.25/- will be paid to Chettuvayi Muhammed. The document also recited that one room was let out for a Vaidyasala and the tenant was entitled to evict the owner of Vaidyasala and reduce the room occupied by Vaidyasala into possession. It is the case of the first respondent herein that in 1973, there was a partition in the family of the lessors and the building was allotted to her. However the petitioner herein would contend that all the rooms were not allotted to the first respondent, who is the petitioner in R.C.P.No.10 of 1983 and two rooms were allotted to one Hamza. This is denied by the first respondent. However, by way of abundant caution, the other alleged lessors also joined the petition by getting themselves impleaded as additional petitioners. Eviction was sought under S.11 (2), (3) and (4) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(3.) By Ext. P1, the Rent Controller granted eviction on all counts. However, on appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Controller excepting the finding regarding arrears of rent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Rent Controller holding that better evidence is required in the matter. Ext. P2 is the said judgment