JAYAKUMAR Vs. VATTAKKAVIL SANOOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed by the Rent Control Court, under section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the Act), which stands confirmed in appeal by the impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Authority. The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings, whereby the Rent Control Court passed the order of eviction and the Appellate Authority affirmed the same, are challenged in this revision. (The parties are referred to as in the rent control petition.)

(2.) According to the petitioner, he purchased the petition schedule building on 1.1.2014 and when he purchased the petition schedule shop room, it was kept closed without any kind of business therein. He purchased the shop room with an intention to start a training centre for computer hardware programme. According to the petitioner, the petition schedule shop room was kept closed from 1.8.2013 onwards without conducting any business by the respondent, who took the petition schedule building on lease from the previous owner of the building. Hence he filed the rent control petition on 24.3.2014, seeking an order of eviction under section 11(4)(v) of the Act.

(3.) The respondent resisted the claim for eviction, contending that the cessation of occupation alleged against him is not true or correct. He contended that the rent control petition itself was a premature one, as the statutory period of six months after cessation of occupation was not available to the petitioner. He has purchased the petition schedule shop room about three months back only. The respondent further contended that he was laid up due to injuries sustained in a motor accident and the shop room remained closed only for one month. While he was making preparations to reopen the shop, the petitioner instituted the rent control petition and a commission was taken to inspect the tenanted premises without notice to him. Thus, the respondent contended that the rent control petition itself is not maintainable and there is no evidence to prove that he ceased to occupy the tenanted premises for the last six months, immediately before the institution of the rent control petition, without reasonable cause.