KARTHIANI AMMA Vs. SIVARAMA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by defen­dants 1,2,12 and 13 arises put of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of the plaint schedule buildings which consist of a residential building,a Charthu and a further extension referred to in this judgment as the out house.The suit was concurrently decreed by the two courts below.The plaint buildings are situated within the municipal limits of Cochin to which the Travancore -Cochin Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Order,1950 and Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Act,1959(Act 16 of 1959)applied.The title of the plaintiff to plaint schedule buildings excepting the out -house is admitted.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the disposal of the second appeal are stated below.Defendants 1 to 11 are the legal representatives of Dr.Raman Nair who died in Medom 1124.According to the plaintiff the plaint buildings were leased to Dr.Raman Nair.The contention of the defendants was that the lease to Dr.Raman Nair was only of the main building and the Charthu and not of the outhouse which was constructed by Dr.Raman Nair.The title of the plaintiff and his predecessors -in -interest to the out -house was denied by the defendants.The plaintiff filed Rent Control Petition 41 of 1953 in the Rent Control Court .,Cochin,for the eviction of the defendants from the plaint buildings.This was transferred to the Cochin Munsiff's Court and re -numbered Rent Control Petition No.59 of 1957.The Rent Control Petition was filed under rule 9,sub -rule(2 ),clauses(i ),( ii )(a ),and(vi)of the Travancore -Cochin Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Order,1950.The grounds for eviction mentioned in the petition by the plaintiff were that the defendants did not pay the rent due in spite of the issue of registered notice,a portion of the building was sublet by defendants 1 to 11 to the 12 th defendant after the commencement of the Cochin Build­ings(Lease and Rent Control)Act XXIV of 1124 without his written consent,that the second defendant denied the landlord's title to the out -house without any bona fides and defendants 1 to 12 were guilty of waste.The Rent Control Petition was dismissed by Ext.P -11 order of the Rent Controller dated 13 th November 1957.The appeal filed against the decision of the Rent Controller by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the order Ext.P -18 dated 7 th March 1958.Though it was found in Ext.P -11 that there was no default in the payment of rent by the defen­dants,that there was no sub -lease and there was no waste by the defendants,it was held that the denial of title of the plaintiff by the defendants to the out -house was bona fide .These findings were confirmed by the appellate court in Ext.P -18.The suit which has given rise to the second appeal was instituted by the plaintiff in view of the second proviso to rule 9(I)of the Travancore -Cochin(Lease and Rent Control)Order,1950.Rule 9(1)with the provisos is reproduced below:

(3.) THE grounds mentioned by the plaintiff in the suit for the eviction of the defendants were that defendants 1 to 11 subleased a portion of the building to the 12 th de­fendant without the written consent of the landlord after the commencement of the Cochin Act XXIV of 1124 and that the tenants denied the title of the landlord to the out­house without any bona fides .4.