VASANTHA MALLAN Vs. N.S. ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the landlord of a three storied building bearing Door No. CC/67/11307 of Kochi Corporation of which the tenanted premises form part of. The ground floor of the building was let out to respondents 1 and 2 on monthly rent for business purpose under a joint tenancy arrangement. Later, it came to the notice of the revision petitioner that second respondent stopped his business and left the tenanted premises. Still later, it came to his notice that the first respondent without the knowledge and consent of the revision petitioner sublet the tenanted premises to 3rd respondent violating the conditions of the lease.

(2.) The revision petitioner required the tenanted floor of the building for his own occupation as well as of his son for conducting business in floor tiles and sanitary wares. Revision petitioner further noticed that during the currency of the tenancy, the respondents 1 and 2 used the petition scheduled building in such a manner as to destroy its value and utility materially and permanently. Alleging these facts, the landlord filed R.C.P. No. 129 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, seeking eviction of respondents 1 to 3 under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, 'the Act').

(3.) The Rent control court ordered eviction of respondents only under Section 11(3) of the Act and rejected grounds of eviction under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The 1st respondent challenged the order of eviction in R.C.A. No. 33 of 2016 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam which reversed the eviction order in R.C.P. No. 129 of 2014. Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, the landlord filed this revision. The refusal of eviction under Sections 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act has become final since the landlord has not chosen to challenge the same. During the pendency of the revision petition, the 2nd respondent was deleted from the party array. Practically the 3rd respondent alone now contests the revision.