IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 42 of 2008()
1. HAMZOO, S/O.ABDULLA, SYLCON, KAVITHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.KAVITHA THREATRE, M.G.ROAD,
... Respondent
2. E.M.JOHNY, EDAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE,
3. E.M.PAUL, DO, DO.
4. JOSE MATHEW, DO, DO.
5. XAVIER MATHEW, DO, DO.
6. JAMES MATHEW, DO, DO.
7. TOMY MATHEW, DO, DO.
8. MARTIN JOHNY, DO, DO.
9. E.J.SONY, DO, DO.
10. SAJU JOHNY, DO, DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :13/02/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.
R.C.R.P.NO.42 OF 2008.
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008
ORDER
K.Balakrishnan Nair,J.
The tenant is the revision petitioner and the landlords are
the respondents. The landlords claimed eviction under Section
11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
(hereinafter called as ‘the Act’). The Rent Controller allowed the
application. The said decision was affirmed by the appellate
authority also. Hence, this revision. The brief facts of the case
are as follows:
2. The landlords are the owners of a theatre complex. The
tenanted building is part of that complex. The tenant was
inducted by the original owner of the theatre complex. After
the present landlords became the owners, the tenant attorned to
them and continued to pay the rent. The tenanted building is
required by the landlords for constructing a waiting room for
ladies and children, for providing rest room to the security staff
R.C.R.42/2008 -2-
and also for additional space for parking the cars. The tenant
resisted the application contending that the landlords have no
title to the tenanted building. A partnership firm is the tenant and
not the revision petitioner. So, the R.C.P. filed without
impleading the firm is not maintainable. The need urged is only
a convenient ruse to evict him. The additional space claimed is
unnecessary. At present the theatre complex is having necessary
space to meet all the requirements mentioned by the landlords.
The revision petitioner-tenant also contended that he is mainly
depending on the income from the tenanted building and no
other buildings are available in the locality to shift this business.
The Rent Controller framed necessary issues. From the side of
the landlords, Pws.1 to 3 were examined. From the side of the
tenant, Rws.1 to 6 were examined. Exts.A1 to A29, were
marked on the side of the landlords and Exts.B1 to B20 were
marked from the side of the tenant. Apart from these, Exts.C1
and C1(a) were marked as court Exhibits. Further Exts.X1 to X4
were also marked. As mentioned earlier, relying on the
R.C.R.42/2008 -3-
evidence on record, both the authorities upheld the claim of the
landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act .
3. In this revision, the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner mainly contended before us that the partnership firm
was the tenant and only the petitioner herein, who was one of
the partners alone was impleaded and, therefore, the rent
control petition was not maintainable. In support of the said
submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out
that various amounts due to the original landlord were paid from
the Bank accounts of the partnership firm. That being so, the
findings of the courts below that the petitioner herein alone was
the tenant is unsustainable and is against the evidence on record.
4. We notice that the said contention has been considered
by the appellate authority in extenso. In the Rent deed,
Ext.A27 the tenant is described as K. Hamzoo, Sylcon, aged 65,
son of Abdulla residing at Noorjahan, Shenoy Road, Kaloor
Desom, Ernkaulam Village. In other words, it is not described
as Sylcon Shopping Centre represented by Mr. Hamzoo. The
R.C.R.42/2008 -4-
mere mention of Sylcon in his address will not make the Sylcon
Shopping Centre the tenant. The appellate authority also rightly
held that on behalf of the petitioner/tenant the amounts might
have been paid from the accounts of a firm. The payment of
money made by a firm towards the amount due to the landlords
will not make it the tenant of the building. So the said
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
accepted, especially in view of the contents of Ext. A27 rent
deed. No other point was urged.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally prayed that
his firm is running a business there for the last 12 years. So
sufficient time may be granted so that he can shift without much
difficulties. On this point, we heard the learned counsel for the
landlords also.
6. Having regard to the facts of the case, the revision
petitioner/tenant is granted six months time from today, on
condition that he files an unconditional undertaking before the
execution court that he shall vacate the tenanted building within
R.C.R.42/2008 -5-
six months from today. The undertaking shall be filed within
three weeks from today. Needless to say, the arrears of rent, if
any, remaining unpaid shall be cleared within one month from
today and the rent due for every month shall be paid promptly
till the building is vacated.
The Revision is disposed of as above.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE
ks. P.N. RAVINDRAN , JUDGE
K.R.UDAYABHANU,J.
===================
CRL.A.NO. OF 200
JUDGMENT
DATE: ......2006
=====================