SHAHITHA ABOOTTY Vs. V.P.NAJEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants, who suffered concurrent orders of eviction, under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') are the revision petitioners herein.

(2.) The landlord filed RCP No.8 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court, Mananthavady, seeking eviction of the tenants under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. According to him, the schedule premises, which was a residential building, was leased out to one Mr.Abootty, as per Ext.A1 rent agreement dtd. 1/8/1993. Since he was in bona fide need of that house, for the residential accommodation of his brother, who was managing their family business at Mananthavady, he wanted to get the tenants evicted from that house. The original tenant Sri.Abootty passed away, and respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Abootty. After death of Sri.Abootty, his legal heirs sublet that building to the 5th respondent-Sri.K.P.Ashraf, without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. So the landlords approached the Rent Control Court for getting vacant possession of the schedule building under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act.

(3.) The legal heirs of late Mr.Abootty as well as the 5th respondent Sri.K.P.Ashraf opposed the Rent Control Petition, alleging that though Ext. A1 agreement was executed in the name of Mr.Abootty, it was a joint lease in favour of the 5th respondent-Mr.K.P.Ashraf also. From the very beginning Sri.Ashraf was residing in the first floor of that building and that fact was well known to the landlord. As Mr.Ashraf was residing there since 1993, his gas connection, Aadhar Card etc. are in the address of the schedule room. According to them, the landlord was having another building near to the schedule building, and so there is no bona fides in claiming eviction of the tenants from the schedule building. Near to the petition schedule building, family of the landlord is having a suitable building and he could very well occupy that building, if he wants to reside at Mananthavady. So according to them, the bona fide need and sublease advanced by the landlord against the tenants are only a ruse to evict them.