Sainulabdeen vs Udayabhanu

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The tenant is in revision challenging the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the grounds of arrears of rent, bonafide need for own occupation and subletting. The allegation of the landlord in the context of the arrears of rent is that rent at the rate of Rs. 70/- per month has been defaulted since December, 1984 and was not paid despite statutory demand notice. The landlord''s claim u/s 11(3) is that the building is needed bonafide for accommodating his dependent daughter Meera for conducting tailoring shop. The allegation of the landlord regarding sublease is that the building has been unauthorisedly sublet or transferred to the second respondent Shihabudeen, son of the first respondent. The defence of the tenant to the ground of arrears of rent was that the building was constructed by him only and that he is entitled to immunity from eviction. He however conceded his status as that of a tenant. His defence to ground u/s 11(3) is that the need is not bonafide. It was submitted that there is no sublease and that the sublessee is the son of the tenant and that he is present in the above building only for assisting his father. The Rent Control Court would make a thorough analysis of the evidence consisting of documents Exts.A1 to A5, Exts.B1 to B6, Exts.C1 and C2, the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and Rws.1 to 3 and come to the conclusion that all the eviction grounds stood established and accordingly ordered eviction on all the grounds. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considering an appeal preferred by the tenant would make a reappraisal of the evidence and dismiss the appeal.

In this revision u/s 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner addressed arguments on the basis of all those grounds. The learned Counsel pointed out that it was Pw2 Meera for whose purpose the building is sought for by her father. He submitted that at any rate, Meera cannot be a dependent on her father as she is depending on her husband.

Referring to the order passed u/s 11(4)(i) the learned Counsel submitted that the sublessee is the son of the tenant and they are residing together in the same house and the son is only assisting his father. These facts were lost sight of by the two authorities. According to the learned Counsel, neither subletting nor objectionable transfer has been established by the evidence in this case. The learned Counsel assailed the order passed u/s 11(2)(b) also.

All the submissions of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner were opposed by Sri. P.C. Chacko, the learned Counsel for the respondent. Sri. Chacko reminded us of the limits of the jurisdiction of this Court u/s 20 for appraisal of evidence for the purpose of arriving at an independent conclusion on facts. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

We do not think that there is any warrant for interference with the judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent the same relates to order of eviction passed on the grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide own occupation. It is true that Pw2 Meera is married. But it is not disputed that her matrimonial home at Kottarakkara is not away from the plaint schedule building. We are not at all impressed with the submissions made by the learned Counsel that Meera has ceased to be a member of her father''s family. It is very clear to our mind that married daughters will continue to be members of the family of their parents for the purpose of rent control jurisprudence. In the instant case, we find that Meera will be entitled to a share in the estate of her father. We are not impressed by the submission that Meera is no longer a dependent of her father. We have no difficult to agree with the Appellate Authority that Meera continues to be dependent on her father at least for a building to do business.

We find that there is considerable merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner in the context of the eviction order passed on the ground of subletting. It is common knowledge that sons without independent jobs or avocation, assist their parents in their business. In this case, the 2nd respondent was only assisting his father the revision petitioner. We are, therefore, of the view that the order of eviction passed by the statutory authority on the ground of subletting is illegal, improper or irregular. We set aside the order of eviction passed u/s 11(4)(i). The rent control revision is allowed to the above extent only.

As a last plea, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner made a request that reasonable time be granted for the revision petitioner to surrender the vacant possession of the building subject to the following conditions:

(i) The revision petitioner shall discharge the entire arrears of rent as found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority due till date less any amount paid or deposited during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition within one month from today.

(ii) The occupational charges payable by the revision petitioner with effect from 15.10.2010 till 15.4.2011 will stand refixed at Rs. 600/- per month.

(iii) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the execution court, as the case may be, within three weeks from today undertaking to surrender the building to the landlord on or before 15.4.2011 and undertaking further that he will comply with the two conditions noted above. We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit in time. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.