K I JACOB Vs. R PRADEEP NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant and the alleged subtenant against whom order of eviction has been passed on the ground of subletting by the Rent Control Appellate Authority are the revision petitioners. The allegation of the respondent landlord who sought eviction of the revision petitioners from the petition schedule building on the ground under Section 11(4)(i) was that the first revision petitioner tenant to whom the building had been let out for the purpose of doing photostat business had wound up that business and that the building has been sublet or transferred unauthorisedly to the second revision petitioner. It was alleged that the second revision petitioner is conducting job typing work in the premises and that in spite of issuance of the statutory intimation notice under the proviso to Section 11(4)(i) the sublease has not been terminated and the second revision petitioner continues to be in possession of the premises.

(2.) The revision petitioners resisted the petition by filling a joint counter. It was contended that the first revision petitioner tenant is entitled on the terms of the lease to carry on any business of his choice and that the first decision petitioner is continuing to run the photostat business apart from conducting job works which he started recently in the tenanted premises. It was explained that in 2003 the first revision petitioner has to sell his photostat machine which had gone out of order and hence the photostat business could not be run for some time and that the said business was restarted after acquiring a new machine on 23-12-2003. It was further contended that the first revision petitioner is running his concern under the name and style "Quilon Photostat". As regards' the presence of the second revision petitioner in the premises, it was contended that the second revision petitioner is only an employee of the first revision petitioner, who is being paid Rs. 150/- per day towards his wages.

(3.) The rent control petition was enquired into by the Rent Control Court and evidence at trial consisted of testimonies of PW-1 and CPWs. 1 and 2 and documents A1 to A5 and B1 to B10 apart from Exts.C1 and C2 commission report and mahazar. The Rent Control Court on appreciating the materials came to the conclusion that the landlord had failed to establish that the premises had been sublet and that exclusive possession of the premises has been transferred to the second revision petitioner. Accordingly, that court dismissed the RCP. In appeal, however, on a re-evaluation of the evidence in the light of the pleadings and the law, the Appellate Authority would reverse the finding of the Rent Control Court and conclude that there has been transfer of exclusive possession of at least a portion of the tenanted premises to the second revision petitioner and that the revision petitioners were unsuccessful in establishing that the jural relationship between them is that of employer and employee. Resultantly the Appellate Authority would allow the appeal and order eviction under Section 11(4)(i).