K T ASYAUMMA Vs. K T FOUSIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenants are the revision petitioners.

(2.) The facts necessary for consideration of this revision petition is as follows:

(3.) When the revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted before us that the appreciation as well as the finding of the appellate court is perverse and illegal and an interference by this court is warranted. It is submitted before us that the appellate court relied on Ext.A7 which is only a document produced at the appellate stage to show that one among the revision petitioners came in possession of a new premises. There is also no proper pleading to get an eviction under Section 11(4) (iii) of the Act. It is also the submission that when the document is admitted, the proper procedure that should have been adopted by the appellate court is that to pass an order to permit the respondent to amend the original petition before the Rent Control Court as held in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B.Goyal, 2002 2 SCC 256. The Ext.A7 will show that the acquisition is by a partnership firm wherein only one among the revision petitioners is a partner. It is also submitted before us that as per the dictum laid down by this court in Abdussalam v. Bhaskaran, 2005 3 KerLT 71 when the building came in possession was actually acquired by a partnership firm, it cannot be considered that there is an acquisition of a vacant possession of a building by a partner of the said firm. It is the further submission that the finding of the Rent Control Court should not have been altered by the appellate court.