V.M. ANDREWS Vs. DAISY PUNNAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in R.C.(OP) No. 26 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kottayam is the revision petitioner herein. The petition was filed by the respondents herein for eviction of the petition schedule building from the possession of the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent, sub lease and subsequent acquisition of building by the tenant, under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The case of the landlord in the petition was that the petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/ -. The rent of the building has been kept in arrears from August 1980. He had sub let the building to M/s. V.M. Joseph and V.M. Michael, contrary to the tenancy agreement and without consent and permission of the landlords. He has constructed a two storied building near the petition schedule building and he is conducting business in that building which is reasonably sufficient for his requirement. The landlords sent a notice dated 29.7.2000 intimating the arrears of rent and also sub lease and requesting to vacate the sub lease and pay the arrears of rent and surrender possession of the building. He sent a reply with false allegations. Since the tenant had not vacated the premises, the landlords filed the petition for eviction on the above grounds.

(2.) The revision petitioner who is the respondent before the rent control court entered appearance and filed counter statement admitting that he was a tenant of the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/ - and he was conducting business in it. While so, on 18.7.1980 the counter petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of the petition schedule building along with 4 cents of property in which the petition schedule building is situated, with the first petitioner's husband late J.M. Punnan @ Mani and his mother for a total consideration of Rs. 26,000/ - and he had paid Rs. 5,000/ - as advance on the date of agreement and subsequently on 26.12.1980, he paid Rs. 7,500/ - and on 18.1.1981 the entire sale consideration has been paid. Pursuant to the agreement for sale, he has been put in possession of the property and the building covered by the agreement for sale. But the sale deed could not be executed as Punnan died on 6.3.1981. There was another tenant by name Sukumaran and Punnan had agreed to execute the sale deed after evicting Sukumaran from the building. Subsequently, the counter petitioner filed O.S. No. 432 of 1995 before the Sub Court, Kottayam for specific performance of the agreement for sale and the same was decided against him and he preferred an appeal before this court which is pending. The allegation that he had committed default in payment of rent is not correct. After the execution of the agreement for sale as per the understanding between the parties, rent has not been paid from January, 1981 and no rent was demanded as well. Further, there is no sub lease. They are brothers of the counter petitioner. Though he acquired another building for expanding his business and for his residence, part of the business in the petition schedule building was shifted to the new building and new business in cattle feed and vegetables was also started and he is conducting the same with the assistance of his brothers. So, there is no sub lease. So, he prayed for dismissal of the application for eviction.

(3.) The second petitioner before the rent control court was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were produced and marked on the side of the landlords. The counter petitioner was examined as CPW1 and Exts. B1 to B14 were produced and marked. After considering the evidence on record, the rent control court came to the conclusion that the denial of title is not bonafide. The mere execution of an agreement itself will not prevent the landlords from evicting the tenant under the Act and it will not amount to denial of title of the landlord. It was found that sub lease was not proved and denied eviction under Sec. 11(4)(i) of the Act but allowed eviction under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 28 of 2003 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order of eviction passed by the rent control court. Dissatisfied with the same, the present revision petition has been filed under Sec. 20 of the Act.