IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 451 of 2006()
1. K. DEVANAND RAO, AGED 46,
... Petitioner
2. K.P. USMAN KOYA, AGED 37,
3. P.K. AMEERALI, AGED 33,
Vs
1. RAJESWARI, AGED 43,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
For Respondent :SMT.PRABHA R.MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :02/01/2007
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ.
==============================
R.C.R.NO.451 OF 2006
============================
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2007
ORDER
Udayabhanu,J.
The revision petitioners are the tenants who are under
orders of eviction as per the concurrent findings of the courts
below on the application filed by the landlord under Section 11(4)
(i)of the Kerala Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act. It is the case
of the petitioners that the first petitioner, who is the original
lessee, is in legal possession of the premises and that the
alleged sub-letting stands not proved.
2. On a perusal of the orders of the courts below, we find
that the respondent/landlord has completely succeeded in
piercing the veil of the alleged partnership, although the
partnership deed is a registered one. It was found on evidence
in the cross examination of respondents 1 and 2, i.e. the first
respondent, the original lessee, and the third respondent, who
RCR.451/2006 -2-
was made a partner as per the partnership deed subsequently
executed, that virtually the first respondent has no role at all in
the business conducted in the premises. Moreover he is not even
aware of any of the details of the business activities conducted in
the premises; he is not aware of the only staff employee in the
business; he is not aware of whether the firm is assessed to
income-tax and he has not seen the accounts maintained. The
third respondent who was examined as RW2, who is a relative of
the 2nd respondent, is not aware of the investment made in the
business. It was found that almost the entire profits as per the
terms of the partnership deed will go to the 2nd respondent. No
account books to prove the investment or disbursement of profits
were produced. The courts below concurrently found that the
partnership deed registered is only to camouflage the sub-lease.
On facts, we find that the findings of the courts below are
impenetrable. There is no reason to interfere in the findings of
the courts below. The rent control revision is liable to be
dismissed at the threshold and we do so.
Considering the plea of the counsel for the revision
petitioners, the petitioners are granted four months time from
RCR.451/2006 -3-
today onwards to vacate the premises on condition that they
shall remit the entire arrears of rent, if any, and continue to
remit the rent due and file an affidavit before the execution
court within 15 days from today that the premises shall be
vacated on or before 2-5-2007.
Sd/-
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
JUDGE
Sd/-
ks. K.R.UDAYABHANU,
JUDGE
TRUE COPY
P.S.TO JUDGE