UNNI VACCO Vs. THANKAMMA GREGORY
LAWS(KER)-2003-2-7
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on February 03,2003

UNNI VACCO Appellant
VERSUS
THANKAMMA GREGORY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioner is the tenant. Revision is filed against the judgment in R.C.A.No. 19 of 2002 of the District Court, Ernakulam. The District Court confirmed the order of eviction under S.11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under S.11(4)(vi) was set aside. It is against that the present revision is filed.
(2.) We shall refer to the array of parties as in the Rent Control Petition. The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The second petitioner is of unsound mind and is represented by guardian, his wife. The Rent Control Petition was filed for evicting the first respondent, who took the building on rent. According to the petitioners, the building has been subleased in favour of respondents 2, 3 and 4. It is further stated that the second petitioner needs the building for his own occupation. The other grounds urged are that the tenant has got another building in his possession.
(3.) The main case submitted by the petitioners is that the second petitioner is of unsound mind. In the present building, he is staying along with his brother, who is also of unsound mind. The present building is not convenient for the continued residence of the petitioners. It has become dilapidated. Further, all the family members are not able to pull together. So far as the sublease is concerned, what is urged is that portion of the building had been subleased by the tenant in favour of respondents 2 , 3 and 4. Second respondent is conducting a restaurant called Copper Chimney Restaurant. Third respondent is conducting an office of the Ernakulam District Headload and Workers Union (C.I.T.U.) and the fourth respondent is conducting a C class shop. Another contention raised was that the first respondent has ceased to occupy the building for more than six months and hence, he is entitled to be evicted under S.11(4)(v) of the Act.;


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