S SANTHA KUMAR Vs. CHERUKATTU KARTHIAYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the interse dispute between the legal heirs of the original tenant is a reasonable cause for non user of the tenanted premises continuously for six months as on the date of the filing of the petition under S.11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965.

(2.) Rent Control Petition was filed under S.11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(v)and 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965, Rent Control Court allowed petition under S.11(4)(v) and rejected the claim under S.11(2), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. Respondents 6 to 8 before the Rent Control Court filed RCA 116/93 and the 2nd respondent before the Rent Control Court filed RCA 164/93. Appeals were allowed and the eviction ordered under S.11(4)(v) was set aside, against which landlord has come up in revision. The only question to be considered is whether the Appellate Court is justified in setting aside the order of eviction passed under S.11(4)(v) of the Act. The fact that the tenanted premises was not being occupied by respondents - tenants for a period of more than six months prior to 21.8.1990, the date of filing of Rent Control Petition is not disputed. Landlord submitted that the respondents - tenants had ceased to occupy the room for more than 1 1/2 years immediately before the filing of the Rent Control Petition.

(3.) Contesting respondents however, took up the stand that on account of litigation between respondents regarding the right to use the shop room the business run there, had to be stopped. The original tenant Kanarankutty was the husband of the first respondent before the Rent Control Court, father of respondents 2 and 3, father inlaw of respondents 4 and 6 and grandfather of respondents 5, 7 and 8. Original tenant died and the respondents before Rent Control Court are his legal representatives. Sixth respondent's brother was examined as RW1. RW1 stated that the 2nd respondent and others were not ready to allow respondents 6 to 8 to participate in the management of the hotel. The 2nd respondent along with respondents 1 and 3 to 5 attempted to oust 6th respondent and her children from the petition schedule premises. Second respondent was making arrangements to sublease the premises without the consent of the 6th respondent and her children. Then 6th respondent filed injunction suit against the 2nd respondent and others vide O.S. 1116/88. On 18.12.88 as per order in I.A. 6497/88 both the parties were directed to maintain status quo till 9.1.1989. Later as per order dated 16.2.1989 the Munsiff Court permitted the 6th respondent and her children to participate in the management of the hotel conducted in the petition schedule building. In other words, the dispute between the parties was one of the reasons projected for not using the building for more than six months prior to the filing of the Rent Control Petition. The question is whether the dispute between the legal heirs of the tenant can be considered as sufficient cause for non occupation.