MATHAI ANTONY Vs. ABRAHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for by respondent landlord under S.11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the

(2.) The tenanted premises was let out to the respondent on 30.1.81 on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. Landlord has provided electric connection to the shop room. As per the terms of the rent deed the tenant has to pay rent on the first of every month and also to pay the electricity charges. Rent was kept in arrears, so also the electricity charges to the Board. Due to the non user of the premises the value and utility of the building was also reduced materially and permanently. Further due to the failure to pay electricity charges the Electricity Board disconnected the supply of electricity and later dismantled the equipments. Landlord had also filed O.S. 90/96 for recovery of rent. Later the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was made applicable to Thanneermukkom Village, consequently he filed RCP.41/90 under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v). The claim under S.11(4)(v) was dismissed and under S.11(2)(b) was allowed. Later he filed the present petition, RCP.1/96 under S.11(4) (v) of the Act.

(3.) Tenant resisted the petition contending that the petition is barred by the principles of res judicata. Further it was also stated that the tenanted premises is being used for storing cement and other materials and there is no necessity of opening the shop every day. Further it was also stated that the business conducted by the tenant in the tenanted premises is of such a nature that it does not require electricity. Landlord in order to establish his case got himself examined as PW. 1. PW.2 is Electrical Engineer examined on the side of the landlord. PW.3 is a local witness. Landlord produced Ext.A1 to A4 documents. C1 and C2 are Commission Reports. Commissioner was examined as PW.4. Tenant got himself examined as CPW. 1. No documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the tenant.