ARUMUKHAN Vs. RAJASEKHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord of a building coming within the purview of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 is the petitioner in this Original Petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under S.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The tenant denied that the rent was in arrears. He also denied that there was subletting. The Rent Controller allowed the application and granted an order for eviction both under S.11(2) and 11(4)(1) of the Act. The first respondent tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal was allowed by the appellate authority. It found that the existence of arrears of rent has not been proved and also took note of the fact that rent due from November 1979 has been deposited. The appellate authority also held that the fact that the landlord had proved that the tenant who was the first respondent in the proceedings, had permitted another to occupy the premises, cannot lead to an inference of subletting of the premises. The appellate authority took the view that subletting has not been proved. The order of the Rent Controller was reversed and the petition for eviction was dismissed. The landlord filed a revision before the District Court and the learned District Judge more or less adopting the reasoning of the appellate authority, dismissed the revision. This is what is challenged in this proceedings.

(2.) When this Original Petition came up before a learned Single Judge, the learned Judge thought that there was some conflict between the decisions in Leela v. Ali ( 1982 KLT 685 ) and Abdul Rahiman Kunju v. Rent Control Revisional Authority ( 1992 (2) KLT 600 ) leading to confusion and the confusion requires to be resolved by a, Division Bench. The matter was, thus referred to the Division Bench.

(3.) Regarding the existence of arrears of rent, it is not necessary for us to advert to the same at this stage since we feel that the entire matter requires to be reconsidered in the light of the view taken on the question of subletting. We, therefore, only vacate the finding now rendered and remand the claim of the landlord under S.11(2) of the Act to be reconsidered by the appellate authority when the appeal is reconsidered by it.