K SREEKUMAR Vs. TA PARAMESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is at the instance of the 2nd respondent in R.C.P.No. 13 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The landlord invoked most of the Sub-clauses in Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in the Rent Control Petition. To be specific, the petition was filed under Sections 11(2)(a), (b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v). The 2nd respondent alone contested the case and this revision is at his instance.

(2.) The case of the landlord as petitioner in the Rent Control Petition is that the petition schedule shop room was originally let out to Krishna Panicker, husband of the 1st respondent, in 1968. After the death of Krishna Panicker, the shop room was rented out to the 1st respondent on 5-1-1977 on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. The rent was increased from time to time and the present rent is Rs. 500/-. The rent upto May, 1998 was paid by the 1st respondent. The petitioner's second son depending on him intends to start a business to himself. There is no other suitable shop room in his possession. Therefore the petition schedule shop room is needed bona fide for running a business by the petitioner. He sent a notice demanding arrears of rent and vacating the shop room. The notice was returned with an endorsement "refused". The first respondent has sub let the petition schedule shop room to the 2nd respondent without the consent of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is now running a grocery shop. The petitioner came to know about it when he received letter, dated 21-7-1998 from the 2nd respondent with a demand draft of Rs. 500/- towards rent of the petition schedule shop room for the month of June, 1998. The petitioner returned the draft denying any relationship with him. The petitioner sent a registered notice to the 1st respondent with a copy to the 2nd respondent to terminate the sub-lease. The 1st respondent refused to receive the notice and 2nd respondent received the notice. The 1st respondent has ceased to occupy the tenanted premises continuously for more than six months and he is liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act also. The first respondent has also made material alteration in the tenanted shop room by making permanent structures such as fixing concrete slabs on the walls of the shop room thereby destroying or reducing its value and utility materially and permanently without the consent of the landlord. Therefore, he is liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(ii) the Act.

(3.) The 1st respondent has filed an objection. The 1st respondent contended that he has ceased to be a tenant since 1979 and thereafter Sreedharan Pillai, father of the 2nd respondent, was the tenant. After his death, his legal heirs are the tenants. As all the legal heirs are not made parties in the Rent Control Petition, it is bad for non-joinder of neccessary parties. The 1st respondent has never paid any rent since 1979. The list respondent was unable to conduct the business after two years of the death of her husband and hence she surrendered the tenancy to the petitioner in 1979 and sold the remaining stocks to Sreedharan Pillai, who took the room on rent from the petitioner. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed objection. The petitioner's right as landlord is admitted and the original tenant was Krishna Pillai was also admitted. In 1979, the 1st respondent surrendered the building to the landlord and in that year the father of the 2nd respondent Sreedharan Pillai took the petition schedule shop room on rent. The petitioner was collecting rent personally from Sreedharan Pillai. Sreedharan Pillai expired on 23-5-1988 and thereafter the 2nd respondent as his legal representative continued the business. The bona fide need alleged is false. The petitioner's second son is doing business in furniture and plastic goods. There are sufficient number of rooms with the petitioner even if the son of the petitioner wants to do any other business. The sub lease alleged is false and is made with ulterior motive. The 2nd petitioner is a tenant as legal representative of Sreedharan Pillai, the original tenant of the building. The petitioner resides adjacent to the petition schedule shop room and was aware of the real facts. The allegation of making alterations in the building is also denied. Even if the tenant has put any slab it has not reduced its utility of the building. The petitioner wanted huge amounts for effecting essential repairs. The repairs were effected under his supervision. The petitioner is not entitled for any of the relief prayed for in the Rent Control Petition.