LAWS(KER)-2015-6-33

K.M. KUNJU MOHAMMED AND ORS. Vs. AHAMMED

Decided On June 16, 2015
K.M. Kunju Mohammed And Ors. Appellant
V/S
AHAMMED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are the tenants. The respondent landlord had filed RCP. No. 2 of 2009, against the petitioners seeking eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The tenants contested the petition. After trial, the Rent control Court found against the landlord on both the grounds and dismissed the Rent Control Petition. The respondent landlord challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in RCA No. 19 of 2010 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, N. Paravur. The Appellate Authority on a reappraisal of the evidence found that the landlord was entitled to an order of eviction on the ground under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. The findings of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) were confirmed. The tenants have filed this revision aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) ACCORDING to Sri. T.H. Abdul Aziz who appears for the revision petitioners tenants, the petitioners are conducting textile business in the premises. It is common for a business of such nature to be conducted by the owners, through persons employed by them. The petitioners are conducting their business through their employees who are Jamal and Navas. They were the persons found in charge of the business when the Advocate Commissioner inspected the premises. When the inspection was in progress, one of the petitioners had reached the premises. Therefore, it is evident that the tenants themselves are conducting the business and that the persons who were present in the shop room were their employees. The counsel has placed reliance on the Irene v. V.S. Venkataraman [(2010) 15 SCC 2711] to contend that, according to the Supreme Court, occupation by servants when the tenant was not in station would not amount to parting with possession or subletting. In the present case also, according to the counsel, absolutely no evidence has been let in to warrant a conclusion that the tenants had sublet the premises. The statements of the respondent landlord when examined as P.W. 1 pleading ignorance as to whether Jamal and Navas were not employees of the petitioners, is relied upon to contend that the ground under Section 11(4)(i) is not made out. According to the learned Counsel, the Rent Control Court had considered the issue in the proper perspective and dismissed the Rent Control Petition. It is contended that, the Appellate Authority erred in interfering with the said order and granting eviction.

(3.) THE learned Counsel points out that, there is a clear mention in Exhibit A1 notice regarding the fact that, the premises in question had been sublet by the tenants. The stand in the reply notice Exhibit P2 was that, the business was being conducted by the tenants themselves. However, the Advocate Commissioner who inspected the premises on 04.06.2009 has reported that the business in the premises was being conducted by one Jamal of Pukkattupady, Edappally. Both Jamal and Navas were present in the shop. Though the first petitioner had reached the premises after sometime, he was not able to make available to the Advocate Commissioner, any records of the business. It was long after the inspection, on 01.10.2009 that the tenants had submitted their objections in the Rent Control Petition. According to the objections, Jamal was a permanent employee of the tenants while Navas was a helper engaged seasonally. According to the counsel, absolutely no document or evidence has been produced to show that Jamal and Navas were so employed. No records have been produced to show that business in the premises was being conducted by the tenants themselves. Exhibits B1 to B4 documents are of the year 2010. They are created only to support the case of the tenants in the Rent Control Petition, it is alleged. Though it has been stated that bill books and other records are available, the said documents have not been produced. When RW1 was in the box, he had pleaded ignorance regarding even the names of the manufacturers of the products that were being sold from the tenanted premises. According to the counsel, the above are factors sufficiently indicating that the premises have been sublet. The need put forth by the landlord is for starting a bakery. According to the counsel, the eviction ought to have been granted, accepting the said ground to be bonafide. The counsel has also placed reliance on various decisions in support of his contentions.