MOHAMMED BIVI A. Vs. SUSHEELA KOVILAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 and 3 to 9 in RCP No. 70 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode are the petitioners in this revision. RCP No. 70 of 2000 was filed by the first respondent herein for eviction under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The Trial Court granted eviction on both grounds and the same was affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The scheduled premises were entrusted on lease by Ext. A1 kychit dated 19/11/1962 to one V. M. Abdul Rasheed and H. Muhammed Hussain, both deceased now. The original first respondent, namely, the first petitioner herein, is the widow of late V. M. Abdul Rasheed. One Meherunni Shaw, the original second respondent, was the widow of other tenant Mohammed Hussain. She did not challenge the order of eviction as the building was later in occupation of V. M. Abdul Rasheed only. The contention of the landlord is that after the death of original tenants V. M. Abdul Rasheed and Mohammed Hussain, the original respondents 1 and 2, transferred possession and sub let the scheduled premises to respondents 3 to 9 in the RCP. The Landlord further contended that payment of rent has been defaulted by the respondents and that landlord is entitled to eviction on the grounds under S.11(2)(b) and S.11(4)(i) of the Act. Original second respondent Meherunni Shaw, wife of one of the tenants, was the sister of V. M. Abdul Rasheed. Actually, in the tenanted premises, business was conducted by Abdul Rasheed. In the objection filed by respondents 1 and 3 to 9, it was contended that since the original tenants died issueless, the wife and sister of the tenant cannot inherent the property in its entirety. They are sharers and they are entitled only to fixed share mentioned under the Mohammedan Law of Succession and balance will go to residuaries and respondents 3 to 9 are not sub lessees and they inherited part of the estate of Abdul Rasheed and, therefore, they cannot be evicted on the ground of sub lease. There is no dispute to the legal position that the legal heirs can also inherit the right of tenancy and if they are legal heirs, they cannot be called sub tenants. The building was on lease from 1962 onwards. According to the landlord, rent was in arrears from 1989. The main question to be considered is whether respondents 3 to 9 are occupying the premises as legal heirs or as sub tenants.

(2.) S .11(4)(i) of the Act reads as follows: