JALEEL KOYA Vs. SHAIRA BANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RCR.No.215/2009 is a revision filed by the landlady and RCR.No.127/2009 is a revision filed by the tenant, being aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The landlady sought to evict the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), sub-letting under Section 11(4)(i) and the ground that the tenant has used the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently {Section 11(4)(ii)}. The ground of arrears of rent no longer survives and hence we are not referring to the pleadings raised by the parties with reference to that ground. The allegation of the landlady in the context of ground of sub-letting was that the first respondent is the tenant and that he has unauthorisedly sub- let or transferred a portion of the tenanted premises to the second respondent who has put up an iron bunk in that portion and is presently conducting a Sweet Meat Shop therein. The allegation in the context of the ground under Section 11(4)(ii) was that the tenant has lowered the floor of the petition schedule building and has constructed an additional floor inside the petition schedule building with the result that the petition schedule building which, at the time of letting was a single floor building has been converted as a two floor building. It was alleged further that on account of such material alteration of the building by the first respondent, the value and utility of the building was materially and permanently reduced.

(2.) The second respondent, the alleged sub tenant did not send any reply to the statutory intimation notice which was issued to him also under the proviso to Section 11(4)(i). He did not raise any contentions in the Rent Control Petition either. The first respondent-tenant contended inter alia that the premises in which the second respondent is conducting Sweet Meat Stall is not part of the premises let out to him. He denied the allegations of sublease or transfer. He denied that there was any landlord- tenant relationship between him and the second respondent. As regards the ground under Section 11(4)(ii) the first respondent contended that the allegation that the building in question was materially altered is incorrect. The very purpose of the lease was to enable him to conduct a driving school. What he has done is only to make temporary arrangements so that the driving school can be conveniently conducted in the building. On account of the temporary arrangements the value and utility of the building has only become enhanced.

(3.) At trial by the Rent Control Court the evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A6 and the oral testimony of P.W.1, the landlady's brother on the side of the landlady. On the side of the tenant the same consisted of Ext.B1 and the tenant's evidence as R.W.1. Apart from that, the reports and sketch submitted by the Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1,C2 and C1(a) respectively and the Commissioner gave evidence as C.W.1. On evaluating the evidence the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the eviction ground under Section 11(4)(i) was not established in the case. According to that Court the bunk shop in which second respondent is conducting Sweet Meat Stall is not part of the building that was let out to the first respondent. That being so, the allegation of subletting or transfer cannot be upheld at all. Accordingly eviction sought under Section 11(4)(i) was declined. However, it was held in the context of Section 11(4)(ii) relying on Ext.C1 Commission report, that it is material and permanent alteration which has been effected by the first respondent in the petition schedule building and that in as much as those alterations are unauthorised, the Rent Control Court concluded that the first respondent was liable to be evicted on the ground under Section 11(4)(ii). The landlady preferred RCA.No.20/2003 and the tenant preferred RCA.No.22/2003 against the order of the Rent Control Court before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority considered both the appeals together. On re-appraising the evidence that Authority concurred with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court and in the result dismissed both the appeals. It is being aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority that the instant revisions have been filed raising various grounds.