VIALAPARAMBIL GOPI Vs. CHUNDAMVEETTIL PAZHAYA OTTAYIL MOHD. BASHEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent, the alleged sub-lessee is the revision petitioner. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the landlord, the 1st respondent herein, arraying the revision petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein as respondents. The parties will be referred to hereinafter as sub- lessee, landlord and tenant respectively.

(2.) THE Rent Control Petition was filed invoking Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Kerala Statute'). The ground under Section 11(2)(b) no longer survives. The allegations in the context of the ground under Section 11(4)(l) were that 2nd respondent herein is the tenant on the basis of a rent deed (Ext.A1); that the premises were sub-let and transferred by the tenant to the sub-lessee unauthorisedly and that the sub-lessee is presently in possession and conducting goldsmithy works. The averments in the context of the ground under Section 11(3) were that the premises were required by the landlord bona fide for conduct of business, he having no other building in his possession for the said purpose.

(3.) THE Rent Control Court on an evaluation of the evidence which included the rival testimonies of the landlord and the sub-lessee as well as Exts. C1 and C2 commission report and plan found that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the sub-lessee and the landlord and that the 2nd respondent is in possession of the premises as a sub-lessee under his brother, the tenant. That Court also found that the claim for bona fide own occupation was genuine and further found that there was no evidence to hold that the tenant was entitled to protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3).