(1.) THE present owner of the building, 2nd petitioner before the Rent Control Court and the other legal heirs of his father, 1st petitioner before the Rent Control Court are the revision petitioners. The parties will be referred to as landlord and tenant or by their ranks before the Rent Control Court. The schedule building is one of the two rooms in the ground floor of a double storeyed building situated on the principal junction of Perambra, a small town in Malabar. The petitioners sought eviction before the Rent Control Court invoking the grounds of arrears of rent (S.11(2)), user of building in a manner as to reduce its value and utility (S.11(4)(ii)), the tenant putting up or acquiring possession of other buildings (11(4)(iii)), cessation of occupation (S.11(4)(a)) and additional accommodation (S.11(8)) of the Rent Control Act.
(2.) THE Rent Control Court did not grant relief to the petitioners on any of the grounds. That Court even held the rent control petition to be not maintainable in law due to the reason that the gift deed relied on by the 2nd petitioner, the de facto claimant for the ground under S.11(8) contained a reservation clause under which the 1st petitioner himself was entitled to collect the rent. In appeal by the petitioners, the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the maintainability of the rent control petition was set aside. But all other findings were confirmed. After disposal of the appeal, the 1st petitioner passed away and hence the junction of revision petitioners 2 to 7 to this revision.
(3.) THE ground of cessation of occupation was not pressed by the petitioners before the Rent Control Court. The ground of arrears of rent was turned down for want of statutory notice. No arguments were addressed before us regarding that ground and also regarding the ground under S.11(4)(ii). It was fairly conceded before us by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the grounds which seriously survived are only the grounds under S.11(4)(iii) and 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965.