LAWS(KER)-2014-5-120

CHALIL ABOOBACKER Vs. CHATHOTH PUNNORATH NANU

Decided On May 22, 2014
Chalil Aboobacker Appellant
V/S
Chathoth Punnorath Nanu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents filed R.C.P.No.3 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, against the revision petitioner/tenant under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition under Section 11(2)(b) and dismissed the Rent Control Petition in so far as it relates to the grounds under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The ground under Section 11(2)(b) is irrelevant now since it is submitted that the arrears of rent was deposited.

(2.) THE landlords filed R.C.A.No.110 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara, challenging the order of the Rent Control Court under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and allowed the Rent Control Petition under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) as well. The judgment of the Appellate Authority is under challenge in this Revision at the instance of the tenant.

(3.) THE Rent Control Court rejected the Commissioner's report mainly on the ground that the evidence collected by her would constitute hearsay evidence. It is not necessary to resolve that question in order to decide this Revision. The Commissioner found about fifty sacks of materials in the petition schedule room. There is no case for the tenant that he was doing any grocery business or that the materials found by the Commissioner in the petition schedule room belong to him. He was conducting STD booth and the materials found by the Commissioner in the room are quite unrelated to the business which was being run by the petitioner/tenant. Even though the tenant was not available at the time of inspection by the Commissioner, the shop room was half open. That is also a circumstance which would probabilise the case of the landlord that the tenant has closed his business. The Commissioner could not find any STD booth being run by the tenant or by any of his employees.