AJITH NATH Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord in an eviction petition instituted under Sec. 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) is the petitioner in this revision petition preferred under Sec. 20 of the Act. The eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Court holding that denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondent is bona fide and the said decision was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the authorities below.

(2.) The subject matter of the eviction petition is five rooms in a two storeyed commercial building. The respondent is none other than the elder brother of the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner in the eviction petition that the building was obtained by the petitioner by virtue of Will No.III/167/2012 executed by his father and that the five rooms referred to in the building were let out orally to the respondent for a period of three years from 1/1/2013 to enable him to continue the already established business which was being conducted in the said premises by their late father. It was also alleged by the petitioner in the eviction petition that the rent agreed to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner for all the five rooms collectively comes to Rs.45,000.00 per month and instead of paying rent at the rate of Rs.45,000.00 per month, the respondent had paid rent only at the rate of Rs.16,000.00 from January, 2013 to September, 2014 and at the rate of Rs.20,000.00 per month from October, 2014 to November, 2015. It is on the aforesaid premise that the petitioner sought an order of eviction of the respondent from the premises under Sec. 11(2)(b) of the Act. The eviction petition was resisted by the respondent contending that the subject rooms do not belong to the petitioner and that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. It was stated by the respondent in the objection filed to the eviction petition that the Will referred to by the petitioner in the eviction petition is not a genuine document; that the father of the parties who was the owner of the subject rooms died intestate; that on the death of the father, there was an oral partition in the family, in terms of which the subject rooms were allotted to the share of the respondent and it is on that basis that he is occupying the rooms.

(3.) The petitioner gave evidence in the proceedings as PW1. Exts.A1 to A19 are the documentary evidence on the side of the petitioner. The respondent did not give any evidence. As noted, the Rent Control Court dismissed the eviction petition holding that denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondent is bona fide and the said decision was affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority.