PORKRAKUTTY Vs. ATTANCHERI VELAPPIL MAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition which has been filed against the order made in revision under Section 12-B, Madras Buildings (Lease and Bent Control) Act passed by the learned District Judge of South Malabar in C. R. P. No. 10 of 1952.

(2.) The facts are: The respondent before us A. V. Mammad has been carrying on business in a rented building belonging to one Aydress. Subsequently in 1950 he purchased a non-residential building, which is the subject-matter of controversy, for Rs. 5500 for doing business. Immediately after the purchase he caused a lawyer's notice to be issued to the petitioner before us who was occupying that non-residential building as a tenant carrying on business therein to surrender possession. The petitioner sent a reply agreeing to pay the stipulated rent but declined to surrender possession of the premises. I have just now mentioned that the respondent before us was occupying a non-residential building. The landlord of the building on the foot of arrears of rent for two months took out proceedings in the Rent Controller's Court and obtained an eviction order. Thereupon this respondent before us has sought the eviction of the petitioner before us on two grounds, viz., that this petitioner before us has sublet the premises to two other persons without his permission and was therefore liable to be evicted under Section 7(2)(ii)(a) and secondly, that he the landlord required the premises for his own business under Section 7(3)(iii). Those two persons did not oppose the application and submitted that they were sub-lessees of portions of the premises under the petitioner before us. The petitioner herein contended that there was no sub-letting but that he was in possession of the entire building. In regard to the second ground viz., that the premises were required for the business of the landlord the first respondent in the lower Court (petitioner herein) contended that the order of eviction passed against his landlord in respect of the building of which he the landlord was the tenant was obtained collusively & therefore there were no bona fides in this claim and that the landlord was not entitled to eviction.

(3.) In regard to the first ground, all the Courts below, viz., the Rent Controller, the appellate Court and the District Judge have come to the conclusion that the subletting has not been made out to their satisfaction and therefore it does not concern us here.