KAYIKATTIL RAJAGOPALAN Vs. VALIYAPARAMBATH GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. Parties will be referred to as the landlord and the tenant respectively. Eviction was sought for on the grounds of arrears of rent (Section 11(2)(b)), bona fide own occupation (Section 11(3)) and cessation of occupation (Section 11(4)(v)) of the Rent Control Act. The Rent Control Court did not grant eviction on the ground of arrears of rent since before the commencement of trial, the tenant discharged the entire arrears as claimed by the landlord. That Court did not grant eviction under Section 11(3) either. The only ground which survives is Section 11(4)(v) on which the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. That order was set aside by the Appellate Authority necessitating the present revision.

(2.) WE need refer to the pleadings so far as they pertain to the ground under Section 11(4)(v) only. The allegation was that 1-1/2 years prior to the institution of the R.C.P. which was filed on 24-9-1991, the tenant ceased to occupy the building without reasonable cause. The tenant answered those allegations by contending that he never ceased to occupy the building; that he who used to conduct grocery business originally, is presently conducting business in coconuts and cigars and is eking out his livelihood on the income derived from that business. Noticing that an Advocate Commissioner had already reported the building to be kept closed, he contended that he has several cardiac ailments and that on the day of the Commissioner's visit, he had been to Kozhikode to meet his Cardiologist.

(3.) HEARD Sri Pulikool Abubacker, Advocate for the revision petitioner/landlord and Sri R.K. Muraleedharan, Advocate for the respondent. The learned counsel supplied us with copies of all relevant items of evidence and the pleadings.