Decided on January 14,2003

G.CHALLAMMA Respondents


- (1.) The landlord is the revision petitioner. His prayer to evict the tenants under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in short, the Act in R.C.P. No. 44/90 on the file of the Rent Controller, Cochin, was rejected. He challenged it by filing R.C.A. No. 16/92 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. But the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.
(2.) The landlord rented out the petition schedule building on 1.8.1959 to Chandrasekara Menon. The rent fixed, after enhancement, was Rs. 100/- per month. The tenant, his mother and his younger brother were residing in the scheduled building. In 1964, the tenant joined Defence Department and served upto 1987. The mother of the tenant was retaining the scheduled building, residing therein and was paying rent on behalf of the tenant. Meanwhile, he got married with the 1st respondent herein. On certain stage, she also joined his company. The tenant died. The mother also died. He got three children. The 1st respondent got shifted to Punnapra at Alappuzha district. They are permanently residing there. Without the knowledge and consent of the landlord, the 1st respondent tenant sublet the petition schedule building, to the 2nd respondent, the younger brother of late original tenant. The contention of the respondents 1 and 2, is that the original tenant took the building for the residence of all the members of the family and not for the residence of the original tenant alone, and therefore, there is no subletting. It is also the contention that the 1st respondent, the wife of the late original tenant is occasionally residing in the petition schedule building, and hence, she being the wife of the original tenant, there is no subletting.
(3.) P.W.1 is the landlord. He also marked four documents. R.Ws. 1 and 2 are the respondents 1 and 2, the wife as well as the younger brother of Chandrasekhara Menon. The Rent Controller rejected the prayer of subletting on the ground that there is no evidence to show that there is exclusive transfer of possession of the building by the 1st respondent. The Appellate Authority, though found that the brother of the tenant has not obtained any tenancy right in respect of the petition schedule building but rejected the appeal holding that the younger brother is occupying the scheduled building under the 1st respondent, and thus there is no transfer or sublease in favour of the 2nd respondent.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.