KIZHAKKEPARAMBATH HUSSAIN Vs. MANAKKAL MUHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner claims that he is a tenant of the petition schedule building under an arrangement of tenancy with the respondent, who is a landlord, entered into on 8.8.2007. He has filed this revision petition assailing the concurrent findings by the courts below under section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) concluding that he has ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of six months without reasonable cause.

(2.) We heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The facts, as are compendiously required for the resolution of the disputes in this case, would disclose that the rental arrangement between the parties commenced in the year 2007. The landlord is asserting that the tenant was not putting the building to use even in the years 2013 and 2014 and that he had earlier filed R.C.P.No.92 of 2012 against the petitioner herein alleging that he had ceased to occupy the room continuously for six months. At that time it transpires that the parties had entered into a settlement by mediation and that the tenant had agreed to pay rent arrears of Rs.83,000/-, due at that time, by issuing a cheque in favour of the power of attorney holder of the landlord. The respondent alleges that even though there was a new arrangement of tenancy with effect from 8.6.2013, pursuant to such mediation and withdrawal of R.C.P.No.92 of 2012, the petitioner herein did not occupy the building at all, which constrained him to file the present rent control petition on 7.2.2014 for the reason that the petitioner herein had ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months thus invoking section 11(4)(v) of the Act.