K. HASSAN KOYA Vs. JAMES GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concurrent orders of eviction of the revision petitioner under Section 11(8) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') passed by the Rent Control Court and Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, are challenged by him in this revision. There were other grounds of eviction also taken against the revision petitioner under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(ii) and 11(3) but all except Section 11(3) were considered and rejected by the Rent Control Court on merits. Ground under Section 11(3) of the Act was not pressed by the landlords at the trial itself and resultantly petition for the eviction under that Section was dismissed as withdrawn.

(2.) The revision petitioner/tenant challenged the order of Rent Control Court in R.C.P. No. 215/15 dated 25.1.2017 in R.C.A. No. 53/2017 while the respondents/landlords chose to accept the dismissal of petition under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(ii) and 11(3) of the Act as final. The Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, concurred with the order of eviction passed under Section 11(8) of the Act and dismissed R.C.A. No. 53/2017 by its impugned order dated 5.1.2018.

(3.) The revision petitioner is conducting 'Jass Medicals' in the tenanted two rooms in the ground floor bearing Door No. V/3457 B&C situated within the limits of Kozhikode Corporation. These two rooms measuring 450 sq.ft. of area are part of a larger building jointly owned by all the three respondents. To the immediate west of the tenanted rooms, the 2nd respondent who is one of the co-owners, is conducting a fast food business under the name and style, 'Hot and Cool' in Door No. V/3457 D. On the immediate east, another tenant is conducting a hotel under the name 'Deluxe Restaurant'. The 1st respondent had purchased half right of ownership in the building from the erstwhile landlord. The remaining undivided half was purchased by respondents 2 and 3, who are husband and wife, while the tenancy in favour of the revision petitioner was continuing with the previous landlord. The landlord and tenant relationship is not a matter in dispute between the parties in this case.