AYISUMMU Vs. BEERAYUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner/tenant is the 5th respondent in the Rent Control Petition, who is facing eviction proceedings under Secs.11(2), 11(3) and 11 (4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The landlords and the tenants are the legal heirs of the original landlords and the tenants. The tenants raised a preliminary issue contending that they have a right of 'Kudikidappu' over the property. So, the petition is not maintainable. In order to support the aforesaid contention, they have produced a ration card wherein the names of the tenants are shown. That apart, Exts.B1 to B3 were produced and marked.

(2.) According to the landlords, the petition schedule buildings were taken on lease by one Moideen, who is the husband of the 1st respondent and the father of respondents 2 to 6 vide registered lease deed No.1867/1975. Later, the rent of the rooms was enhanced. After the death of the predecessors of both the parties, rooms were remained as closed. The rent of the room was not paid from the year 2000 onwards and the tenants were not doing any business in the rooms. The 6th petitioner was the unemployed person for whom the petition schedule room was required to start the business of cement and other building materials. Other occupants of the building surrendered their possession to the landlords. Several other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift the business from the petition schedule building. On the above premises, they prayed for an order of eviction under the aforesaid ground.

(3.) In view of the rival plea, raising the right of 'Kudikidappu', the Rent Control Court considered the preliminary issue, whether the right of 'Kudikidappu' is a bona fide claim or not. After considering the aforesaid preliminary issue, the Rent Control Court found that the right of 'Kudikidappu' lacks bona fides and thereby the issue is not liable to be referred to the Land Tribunal under Sec.125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. In appeal, the Appellate Court also confirmed the aforesaid finding. This revision is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below.