E K IBRAHIM Vs. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent landlord of a building filed an application under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for evicting the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent and that he required the building bona fide for his own occupation. Later two more grounds were added by way of amendment, namely, that the petitioner is in possession of another building sufficient for carrying on his business and that he sublet the building to the 2nd respondent without the consent of the landlord. The petitioner denied all the grounds raised by the landlord. The Rent Control Court negatived the contention of the landlord that the petitioner is in arrears of rent and that the landlord required the building for his own occupation bona fide. Nevertheless, that court found that the additional grounds urged by way of amendment, namely, that the petitioner sublet the building and that he is in occupation of another room sufficient for his purpose have been made out and accordingly ordered eviction. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority (Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda). Pending the appeal the Act was amended (Act 2 of 1973) by incorporating a proviso to S.11(4)(i) which is in the following terms: -

(2.) The petitioner's counsel contended that the Rent Control Court and the other authorities under the Act erred in deciding the case on the additional grounds raised by the landlord by way of amendment to the rent control petition. According to her, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the rent control petition and in support of that relied on the decision of Mathew J. (as he then was) in Lalitha v. Lakshmi Bai ( 1967 KLT 182 ). Before I refer to this decision it will be useful to read S.23(1)(j) of the Act which is in the following terms:

(3.) The amendment of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by Act 2 of 1973 is not retrospective and therefore the District Court was right in holding that the newly added proviso to S.11(4)(i) will not apply to the instant case. But, there is no evidence to show that the subletting to the 2nd respondent was subsequent to the commencement of the Act. The Act was extended to the Panchayat where the building is situate only in 1968. Therefore, the landlord has not made out the ground of subletting to evict the petitioner.