LAWS(KER)-2013-2-90

MALAYI KUMUDAM Vs. VENUGOPAL, M.V.

Decided On February 21, 2013
Malayi Kumudam Appellant
V/S
Venugopal, M.V. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision. Respondents 1 to 3 sought eviction of the revision petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Act', for short) alleging as follows:

(2.) Respondents 4 and 5 remained ex parte and the revision petitioner alone contested the matter. The revision petitioner contended that the tenancy right exclusively belongs to her as per a Will executed by her father. According to her, the appurtenant compound having an extent of 4 cents is also covered by the lease. The constructions were made with the permission of the landlord to make the original shed more convenient. Her further case is that she has not caused any damage to the shed or the compound wall as alleged. However, she would admit that the original shed was expanded by utilising a portion of the surrounding land. She maintained the stand that it was not a material alteration within the meaning of Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act.

(3.) The Rent Control Court allowed the application under both the subsections and in appeal filed by the petitioner, the order of eviction was confirmed. The revision petitioner took the matter in revision before this Court as RCR No. 314 of 2010. In that revision, order under Section 11(2) (b) was confirmed, but the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration on the claim under Section 11(4) (ii) of the Act.