PULIKKOOL THAZHEKUNIYIL K. DHINESHAN Vs. PEEDIYEKKANTAVIDA KUNHIMOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of eviction granted under Sec. 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), the tenants came up with this revision.

(2.) Initially, a rent control petition was filed before the Rent Control Court alleging ground under Sec. 11(4)(v) of the Act. It was dismissed by the Rent Control Court holding that there is no cessation of occupation, as alleged by the petitioner/landlord. It was taken up in appeal by the landlord before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, wherein the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on a re-appreciation of the evidence and pleadings, reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court by allowing an order of eviction under Sec. 11(4)(v) of the Act, which is under challenge in this revision by the tenants.

(3.) Going by the judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, it is seen that the Rent Control Appellate Authority had gone into the question whether there is any sublease or not with respect to the petition schedule building, so as to arrive at an inference regarding the requirement under Sec. 11(4)(v) of the Act. It is seemed to be so strange that even the petitioner/landlord did not have any case of sub-lease and no such ground was raised either in the Rent Control Petition or in the appeal. We are really in darkness, on what basis the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that there is a sub-lease and somebody was doing business in the petition schedule and, as such, there is a cessation of occupation by the tenants. The said finding of the Appellate Authority is really perverse and cannot be accepted even for a moment.