KARSHAKA UNION Vs. BAHULEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are tenants. The first respondent filed the Rent Control Petition before the Rent Controller for eviction of the building mainly on the ground that the first revision petitioner sub let the building to revision petitioners 2 and 3 without the knowledge and consent of the first respondent and against the provisions of the lease deed. The case of the revision petitioners is that there was no sub lease as alleged in the Rent Control Petition. Revision Petitioner No. 1 is the Karshaka Union represented by its secretary Sri. M. Vasudevan. Revision Petitioner No. 2 is the Private Operators Sub Association, Alappuzha district and third Revision Petitioner is the Lorry and Motor Vehicles Owners Union, Cherthala Taluk. The second revision petitioner is represented by its Secretary, who is none other than Sri. M. Vasudevan. The third revision petitioner is represented by its Vice President who is also the same Sri. M. Vasudevan. Thus, he being the principal office bearer of all the three Unions, the premises were being jointly used by the three Unions. Therefore, it was contended that there was no parting of possession by the first revision petitioner in favour of revision petitioners 2 and 3. The further case is that the legal possession of the rented building still continues with the first revision petitioner.

(2.) The first respondent was examined as P.W. 1. According to the first respondent, when he went to the building he found the boards of petitioners 2 and 3. He also saw the phone belonging to the third revision petitioner. He also saw the workers of revision petitioners 2 and 3 sitting there, but he did not know who are all the workers sitting there on behalf of revision petitioners 2 and 3. Though he saw two persons sitting there, he did not ask the name and other details of those persons. The evidence of the first revision petitioner as D.W. 1 is to the effect that the office of revision petitioners 2 and 3 are allowed to function in the same building because Sri. M. Vasudevan is the principal office bearer of all the three Unions. He also deposed that he had never sub let the building to revision petitioners 2 and 3. It is the first revision petitioner who is paying rent to the first respondent. He was emphatic in stating that counter respondents 2 and 3 were not paying the rent.

(3.) The Rent Control Court ordered eviction holding that the first revision petitioner had sub let the schedule room to second and third revision petitioners. The reasons which prompted the Rent Controller to come to the above conclusion was that the revision petitioners had separate furniture and separate office Secretary and that all the Unions are maintaining separate minutes and separate accounts for their business. The Rent Control Court also relied on the statement of CPW 1 that the first revision petitioner is getting some amount by way of donation from the other two unions.