PANKAJAM Vs. RADHA NEDUMGADI
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The present landlady who purchased the original landlady's rights during the pendency of the proceedings before the rent control appellate authority and got herself impleaded as the second respondent before that authority is the revision petitioner. We will refer to the parties as the present landlady, the previous landlady and the tenant respectively. The previous landlady applied to the rent control court invoking the grounds under S.11(3) and 11(4)(i). That court disallowed the claim for eviction under S.11(3), but ordered eviction under S.11(4)(i) - the ground of subletting. The previous landlady did not prefer any appeal against the dismissal of her application under S.11(3). In fact she conveyed her title to the present landlady - the revision petitioner. It is conceded before us that the claim under S.11(3) does not survive for consideration.
(2.) The allegations in the rent control petition in the context of ground under S.11(4)(i) were that the tenant is the respondent therein - M/s. Allied Sales Corporation, that the premises are presently in the possession of M/s. Sastha Enterprises, a proprietary concern belonging to one Velayudhan Nair. Since the transfer of the premises by the tenant to Sri. Velayudhan Nair amount to subletting and since the same has not been terminated in spite of statutory notice issued in that regard, eviction was sought for on the ground under S.11(4)(i). The tenant denied the allegations and contended that itself is in possession of the premises, that Sri. Velayudhan Nair is only a nominated dealer of the company, that the company, the lessee continues to be in possession of the building, that the christening of the shoproom as Sastha Enterprises was done by Velayudhan Nair with the approval of the tenant - company and that the same will not in any manner amount to a sublease in favour for Sri. Velayudhan Nair and that Sri. Velayudhan Nair's status in the building is only that of a licensee.
(3.) The rent control court formulated necessary points in the case and the evidence consisted of Exts. A1 to A78 on the side of the petitioner - landlady, Exts. B1 to B4, Ext. C1 commissioner's report and oral testimony of PW 1 and R.W. 1 respectively on the side of the original previous landlady and the tenant. The rent control court on an evaluation of the evidence found that the tenant was the respondent in the rent control petition - M/s. Allied Sales Corporation, successor company of the original tenant M/s. Usha Sales Private Limited and that the person presently in possession of the schedule building was one Velayudhan Nair, who is the owner of M/s. Sastha Enterprises.- the business presently carried on in the schedule building. That court found that the respondent - company and M/s. Sastha Enterprises are independent entities and that the contention that Velayudhan Nair is not a transferee of the building, but is only a licensee under the tenant is not sustainable. Noticing that the document of lease under which the tenant was entrusted with the building does not authorise sublease, that court found that . the arrangement between the tenant and Sri. Velayudhan Nair is clearly one of sublease and since the same is without the landlady's consent is objectionable and granted eviction.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.