MINI Vs. LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLADY is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court allowed eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) and dismissed the claim under Section 11(4)(ii). First respondent-tenant took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority as R.C.A. No. 19 of 1995. While the appeal was pending, first respondent died. Consequently his legal representatives, wife and children got themselves impleaded. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the finding under Section 11(4)(i). Aggrieved by the same this revision petition has been preferred by the landlady.

(2.) PETITION schedule building was rented out on 1-1-1993 by Ext. A2 rent chit on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. Petitioner stated that first respondent had defaulted in payment and that he had sub-leased the premises to respondents 2 and 3 and caused damages by reducing its value and utility of the premises. Petitioner had sent registered lawyer notice Ext. A-3 dated 25-8-1993 to the first respondent intimating about the sub-lease and directing him to vacate the sub-lessee within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. Petitioner has stated in the rent control petition that first respondent has sub-let a portion of the tenanted premises to the second respondent for conducting a telephone booth without her consent and knowledge. Further first respondent has also transferred the hotel business in the premises to the third respondent by way of sub-lease and the third respondent is running a hotel by name "Thripthy Hotel" in the said premises.

(3.) THE Rent Control Court entered a clear finding on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence that the petitioner-landlady has established that the first respondent has sublet the premises to one Francis, the second respondent, and he is running telephone booth in a portion of the tenanted premises. Rent Control Court also entered a specific finding that the first respondent has sub-leased the premises to hotel business to the third respondent and he is conducting hotel by name "Thripthi Hotel" and later it was found that the hotel is being conducted by one Raghavan under the name and style "Hotel Ambadi". The Rent Control Court found no reason to allow eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) and therefore eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) was disallowed. Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court, which in our view, by a wayward reasoning without properly understanding the meaning and scope of Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. Appellate Authority has first examined as to whether landlady had complied with the first proviso to Section 11(4)(i), i.e. issuance of notice. We may extract the said proviso for easy reference :