THAZHEPADIKKAL VASANTHA Vs. GIRIJA SUNDARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Tenants against whom RCP No.23 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode was filed and whose eviction was confirmed in RCA No. 131 of 2005 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, are Revision Petitioners No.1 to 7 herein.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that as per Ext.A1 Cooliee Kacheet dated 26.04.1980, Sundaran, the husband of the petitioner in the Rent Control Court, had let out the petition scheduled premises to late Velayudhan, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 7 in the R.C.P, who are petitioners 2 to 7 in this Revision Petition. The monthly rent fixed in Ext.A1 was Rs.90/-. It is stated that Sundaran had filed RCP 148/88 seeking eviction of the tenant, urging grounds under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act' for short) and it was allowed under Section 11(2)(b) and disallowed under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (ii). The landlord had filed RCA No.171/1989 and on its dismissal, filed CRP No.483 of 1994 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.A3 order dated 29.09.2000, enhancing the rent to Rs.200/- per month with effect from 01.10.2000. During the pendency of RCA No.171 of 1989, Velayudhan expired in 1990 and thereupon, respondents 1 to 7 being his legal representatives, were impleaded in the proceedings.

(3.) Subsequently, the respondent herein filed RCP No.23 of 2001, urging grounds under Section 11(2) (b), 11(3) and 11(4) (i) of the Act. It was stated that her husband Sundaran had executed Ext.A6 Settlement Deed No.733/1992 dated 24.02.1992 in her favour and that she had informed the tenants about the transfer of ownership and demanded payment of rent, which was refused by them. She had thereupon sent Ext.A2 notice dated 27.01.2001 which also was not complied with. According to her respondents 1 to 7 in the RCP, being the legal heirs of late Velayudhan, had kept rent in arrears at Rs.90/- per month and Rs.200/- per month with effect from 01.10.2000. She also stated that her husband who was an employee of Gwalior Rayons, Mavoor lost employment on its closure and that the family is in poverty and financial crisis and that her dependant son, Sajeev Kumar, though qualified, was unemployed and for establishing an industry for the livelihood of the family, she sought eviction of the tenants. It was also stated that respondents 1 to 7 herein were not running any business in the premises and that they had sublet the premises to the 8th respondent and her son without her consent. According to her respondents 1 to 7 were not depending upon the income from the premises.