K.S. USMAN Vs. VIDYAVATHI @ VIDYA KALESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11 4 (i), 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against the tenant, are under challenge in this revision brought under Section 20 of the Act, by the tenant. Respondents herein are the legal heirs of the original landlord, who brought eviction proceedings before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff Court, Ernakulam) as RCP No.66 of 2011. The petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner herein by the deceased landlord on 1.5.1984 on a monthly rent of 3,340/-, for the purpose of running the godown of a parcel service, by name 'M/s.Saurashtra Roadways'. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced and now it is 5,440/- per month. The landlord alleges that the respondent-tenant has sublet the building to his brother Ummer and the said Ummer has started an establishment of his own in the building by name 'M/s.SRD Logistics". The said sublease arrangement was made by the tenant Usman without the knowledge and consent of the landlord. But the said arrangement came to the knowledge of the landlord much later. The petitioner also alleges that by rough and careless user of the building for parcel services, by bringing heavy parcel vehicles, the tenant and the sub-tenant have caused damage to the building, and this has diminished the value and utility of the building materially and permanently. The upstair portion of the building is occupied by the son of the landlord, but he finds it not safe to continue there, when the down stair portion occupied by the tenant stands damaged materially. It is also alleged in the petition for eviction that the tenant has acquired a building of his own, wherein, he has started a business by name "Lens and Frames", and he has thus abandoned the business which he started in the petition schedule building. Thus, the allegations in the eviction petition constitute the grounds for eviction under 11 4(i), 11 4 (ii) and 11 (4) (iii) of the Act.

(2.) The tenant, who is the revision petitioner herein, entered appearance in the trial court and filed counter statement resisting the prayer for eviction on the contention that he has not, in fact, caused any damage to the tenanted building, except the ordinary wear and tear due to the user for the purpose for which it was taken on rent, that he has not acquired any building of his own, that he has only joined a partnership doing a business by name 'Lens and Frames' in another building, that he has not sub let the petition schedule building to his brother Ummer, that the business now being conducted in the petition schedule building is a business jointly run by him and his brother Usman and that he has not in any manner transferred the premises to his brother.

(3.) The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence during trial. During the proceedings, the trial court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the tenanted premises and submit report. Pending the proceedings, the original landlord died. Some of the legal heirs were impleaded as supplemental petitioners, and the other legal heirs, who could not join as petitioners, were brought on party array as supplemental respondents. The 2nd additional petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 & A2 series were marked on the side of the petitioners during trial. The tenant was examined as RW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on his side. The report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner was marked as Ext.C1.