MOHAMMED SAGEER Vs. PRAKASH THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The landlord contended that the petition schedule building was purchased by him as per Document No. 2381/1994 of the Sub Registrar Office, Ernakulam from Pradeep P. Thomas. The tenant was duly informed about the transfer of ownership. The tenant is occupying the building from May 1, 1993 onwards as per the agreement, wherein there is a stipulation that the tenant shall not sublease the building. In contravention of the stipulation against subletting, the tenant sublet a portion of the petition schedule building to Punnoose Mathew for running a public telephone booth. The landlord came to know of the subletting only in December, 1998. Another portion of the building was sublet to Sheriff to run real estate business and yet another portion was sublet to Sham for a computer centre. It was contended by the landlord that the tenant was collecting rent from the sublessees and was enriching himself. Ext.A-4 lawyer notice dated 1.1.1999 was issued to the tenant demanding termination of the sublease. On receipt of the notice, the tenant terminated the sublease only in respect of Sheriff and Sham. The tenant did not terminate the sublease in favour of Punnoose Mathew. Hence the Rent Control Petition was filed on the allegation that the tenant sublet a portion of the building to Punnoose Mathew without the consent of the landlord.

(3.) The tenant filed objection wherein he contended inter alia as follows: The landlord had already filed R.C.P. No. 167 of 1998 against the tenant under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. In that Rent Control Petition, the landlord filed an application for amendment of the Petition incorporating a plea under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. That application for amendment was dismissed. In that application also, the landlord had raised the contention that there was subletting in favour of Punnoose Mathew, Sheriff and Sham. The dismissal of the application for amendment in R.C.P. No. 167 of 1998 would operate as res judicata so far as the present Rent Control Petition is concerned.