{"id":262253,"date":"2004-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004"},"modified":"2018-03-07T18:29:08","modified_gmt":"2018-03-07T12:59:08","slug":"kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 1732 of 2001(B)\n\n\n1. KALYANI BHARATHAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. N. ABDUL MUTHALIF\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH\nCoram\n\n\n Dated :     14\/12\/2004\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
.SP 2
\n…..L…….T………T…….T…….T…….T…..T…J
\n         M.RAMACHANDRAN & V.RAMKUMAR, JJ.@@
\n        jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n
         —————————-@@
\n        j
\n         C.R.P.NO.1732\/2001@@
\n        j\n<\/p>\n
         —————————-@@
\n        j
\n         DATED: 14TH  DECEMBER, 2004@@
\n        j
\n      ORDER@@
\n     jAAAAA
\n((HDR 0
\nC.R.P.1732\/2001<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t:#:\n<\/p>\n
))
\n.HE 1
\n     V.Ramkumar, J@@
\n     CCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n     \tRespondents 1,2,5 and  4  respectively  in  a
\n     petition for eviction filed as R.C.P.  39\/1990 before
\n     the  Rent  Control  Court, Palakkad, are the revision
\n     petitioners herein.  The said R.C.P.   was  filed  by
\n     the  first  respondent  herein  for  eviction  of the
\n     respondents (6 in number) to the said R.C.P.  on  the
\n     ground  of sub lease falling uder section 11(4)(i) of
\n     the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent  Control  )  Act,
\n     1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).\n<\/p>\n
     \t2.   For the sake of convenience, the parties
\n     will hereinafter be referred to  according  to  their
\n     rank before the Rent Control Court.\n<\/p>\n
     \t3.   The  Rent Control Court, after trial, as
\n     per order dated 19-12-1992,  ordered  eviction  under
\n     section 11(4)(i)  of the Act.  Aggrieved by the order
\n     for eviction respondents 1 to 3 and 5 filed an appeal
\n     before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad
\n     as R.C.A.No.6\/1993 and as per judgment dated 5-3-2001
\n     the  appellate   authority   dismissed   the   appeal
\n     confirming the order for eviction.  Hence the present
\n     revision.\n<\/p>\n
     \t4.  We heard Advocate Sri.N.L.Krishnamoorthy,
\n     the   learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  revision
\n     petitioners  and  Advocate  Sri.V.Chithambaresh,  the
\n     learned    counsel    appearing    for    the   first
\n     respondent\/landlord.\n<\/p>\n
     \t5.   Assailing  the  orders   for   eviction,
\n     Sri.N.L.Krishnamoorthy made the following submissions
\n     before us:\n<\/p>\n
     \tThe  original lessee of the petition schedule
\n     shop room  was  one  Bharathan  Vaidyar  who  was  an
\n     ayurvedic physician.    He  was  running  an ayurveda
\n     oushadasala in the petition schedule  premises  which
\n     is a  shop  room  in  a line building.  While so, the
\n     present  landlord’s  brother  filed  a  petition  for
\n     eviction  against  all  the  tenants on the ground of
\n     reconstruction.  Even though the matter was fought up
\n     to High Court and an  order  for  reconstruction  was
\n     secured by him, the same could not be executed due to
\n     the    town    planning   restrictions   which   were
\n     subsequently enforced.    In   the   meanwhile,   the
\n     original  tenant  Bharathan  Vaidyar  expired and his
\n     tenancy rights devolved on respondents 1 to 6 who are
\n     his widow and children.   Since  none  of  the  legal
\n     heirs   of   Bharathan  Vaidhyar  had  the  necessary
\n     qualifications to run the Oushadasala,  they  had  to
\n     necessarily look for other avocation in life.  It was
\n     under  these  circumstances  that  the  first and 3rd
\n     respondent together started a  restaurant  under  the
\n     name and  style of `Hotel Surya’.  Since they did not
\n     have  the  necessary  experience  or   expertise   in
\n     conducting the said business a partnership was formed
\n     by  the 3rd respondent with one Ramankutty Gupthan as
\n     per Ext.B1 partnership dated 19-5-1985 for  a  period
\n     of 5  years from 11-05-1985 onwards.  But the payment
\n     of rent rates and  taxes  including  electricity  and
\n     other  charges  was  continued  to be made by the 3rd
\n     respondent  who  retained  the  dominion   over   the
\n     premises.   The  licence for the business was also in
\n     the name of the 3rd respondent who was only  learning
\n     the trade.  While so, the landlord who got frustrated
\n     for  not  being  able to get vacant possession of the
\n     premises pursuant to the original R.C.P.    filed  in
\n     the year 1975, caused to be sent Ext.A1 lawyer notice
\n     dated  23-4-1990  to  the  first respondent (widow of
\n     Bharathan Vaidhyar) alleging that respondents 1 to  6
\n     have sub let the premises to a stranger.  The name of
\n     the  stranger  was  not disclosed in the said notice.
\n     Ext.A2 reply notice dated 17-5-1990 was sent  to  the
\n     landlord  stating  the  true facts and also informing
\n     him  that  there  was  no  sub  lease  but   only   a
\n     partnership  which  also  was  dissolved and that the
\n     restaurant was now run by respondents 1 and  3.    In
\n     spite   of  that,  the  landlord  filed  the  present
\n     R.C.P.39\/1990 alleging subletting to a stranger whose
\n     name was not revealed in the Rent Control Petition as
\n     well.  Along  with  the  Rent  Control  Petition  the
\n     landlord   took   out   an   ex-parte  commission  on
\n     28-6-1990.   The  Advocate  Commissioner  who   filed
\n     Ext.C1  report dated 13-7-1990 has stated that he did
\n     not see any of the children of Bharathan  Vaidyer  in
\n     the  premises  but  saw  the three sons of Ramankutty
\n     Gupthan conducting the hotel and one of them told the
\n     commissioner that Ramankutty Gupthan who was on  that
\n     day laid up was running the hotel.  It was no part of
\n     the  Commissioner’s  function to submit such a report
\n     which contains   only   hearsay   evidence.       The
\n     respondents  had  filed  detailed  objection  to  the
\n     Commissioner’s report.  Even  after  the  receipt  of
\n     Ext.A2  reply notice and the filing of Ext.C1 report,
\n     the landlord did not amend the Rent Control  Petition
\n     to  implead  Ramankutty  Gupthan nor did the landlord
\n     incorporate a plea that Exts.B1 and B21 as per  which
\n     the  partnership  with Ramankutty Gupthan was started
\n     and later dissolved, are sham documents.  It was  for
\n     the  first time when the landlord mounted the witness
\n     box as PW1 that  he  came  out  with  the  case  that
\n     Ramankutty  Gupthan  was the stranger in whose favour
\n     the tenants had parted possession.   The  non-mention
\n     of  the name of the alleged sub-lessee both in Ext.A1
\n     notice and in the Rent Control Petition has not  only
\n     caused  a  serious breaches to the tenants in shaping
\n     their defence, it will also  render  the  proceedings
\n     defective and  invalid.   It is now well settled that
\n     the act of the  tenant  forming  a  partnership  with
\n     another  for  the  conduct  of  the  business  in the
\n     tenanted premises does not amount to transfer of  his
\n     rights under the lease or subletting so as to attract
\n     Sec.11(4) (i)  of the Act.  At any rate, by virtue of
\n     the  proviso  to  Sec.11(4)  (i)  of   the   Act   as
\n     interpreted in  Leela  v.  Ali & Others 1982 KLT 685,@@
\n                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     the  tenant  has   the   right   to   terminate   the
\n     objectionable  sub  lease  upon  receipt of statutory
\n     notice and a ground  for  eviction  under  the  above
\n     provision  will  enure to the landlord only, if, even
\n     after the statutory period of  30  days,  the  tenant
\n     does  not terminate the objectionable transfer or sub
\n     lease and the same subsists even after the expiry  of
\n     the statutory period of 30 days.  By Ext.B21 document
\n     the partnership business was terminated by the tenant
\n     and the landlord was also informed of the same as per
\n     Ext.A2 reply   notice.     Except  for  the  solitary
\n     evidence of the landlord  examined  as  PW1  and  the
\n     report  of  the  ex  parte  Commission,  there was no
\n     independent  evidence  adduced  by  the  landlord  to
\n     substantiate the  plea  of  sub  letting.   Hence the
\n     orders of  the  Rent  Control  Authority  overlooking
\n     these vital aspects cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
     \t6.   We  are  afraid  that  we find ourselves
\n     unable to agree with  the  above  submissions.    The
\n     tenanted  premises  which  is  the  subject matter of
\n     these proceedings is a shop room in a  line  building
\n     on  the  southern  side  of the market road in Koppam
\n     amsom of Palakkad town.  The original lessee  of  the
\n     petition   schedule   shop  room  was  one  Bharathan
\n     Vaidhyar who was  conducting  a  vaidhyasala  selling
\n     ayurvedic medicines  and  preparations.    It is true
\n     that  the  then  landlord  had  filed  petition   for
\n     eviction of the tenants in the said line building and
\n     R.C.P.99\/1975  was  the  one  filed against Bharathan
\n     Vaidhyar.  Eventhough the landlord succeeded  in  the
\n     said  attempt by getting an order for eviction on the
\n     ground of reconstruction under section 11 (4)(iv)  of
\n     the  Act, on account of the subsequent implementation
\n     of the town planning scheme in that area the landlord
\n     was not able  to  get  a  revised  plan  and  licence
\n     approved  in accordance with the town planning scheme
\n     and the line building  could  not  be  reconstructed.
\n     That need not in any way affect the bona fides of the
\n     present  rent control petition filed as R.C.P.39\/1990
\n     on the ground of  sub  letting  which  is  a  totally
\n     different cause  of  action.    If  the  plea  of the
\n     landlord that the legal heirs  of  Bharathan  Vaidyar
\n     (who  died  in the meanwhile) have either parted with
\n     their possession of the premises or have  sublet  the
\n     premises  so as to attract Sec.11(4)(i) of the Act is
\n     upheld, then the landlord  will  be  entitled  to  an
\n     order  of  eviction  notwithstanding the dismissal of
\n     R.C.P.  99\/1975.\n<\/p>\n
     \t7.  There is no dispute  that  the  lease  in
\n     favour  of  Bharathan  Vaidhyar did not confer on him
\n     any authority to transfer his rights under the  lease
\n     or  sublet  the  whole or any portion of the premises
\n     without the consent of the landlord.  It is true that
\n     neither Ext.A1 notice nor the Rent  Control  Petition
\n     discloses  the name of Ramankutty Gupthan who was the
\n     alleged sub lessee to whom the tenants  are  said  to
\n     have sublet the premises.  First of all, the landlord
\n     examined  as  PW1  has stated that he got the name of
\n     Ramankutty Gupthan only after the  filing  of  Ext.C1
\n     report by  the  Advocate Commissioner.  Secondly, the
\n     non-mention of the name of  the  alleged  sub  lessee
\n     does not  invalidate  or  vitiate  the notice.  (vide@@
\n                                                     AAAAA
\n     Mini vs.  Leela<\/a> 2004 (1) KLT  195).    In  fact,  the@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     relevant  provisions  of  the  Act  do  not  give any
\n     importance to the transferee or  sub  lessee  as  the
\n     case may be.  Even the proviso to Section 11(4)(i) of
\n     the   Act   only  obliges  the  landlord  to  send  a
\n     registered  notice  to  the  tenant  intimating   the
\n     contravention of the prohibition in the lease against
\n     transfer  or  subletting and providing an opportunity
\n     to the tenant to terminate the transfer or sub lease,
\n     as the case may  be.    The  emphasis  in  the  above
\n     provision  is  on  the  objectionable  conduct of the
\n     tenant in committing breach of the terms of the lease
\n     and not on the  objectionable  presence  of  the  sub
\n     lessee.  That is presumably the reason why under sec.
\n     21  of  the  Act a specific provision is made that an
\n     order for eviction of a tenant shall  be  binding  on
\n     the  sub  tenant  also  whether  he is a party to the
\n     proceedings or not.\n<\/p>\n
     \t8.  The right of the tenant under  the  lease
\n     is  to enjoy the tenanted premises on payment of rent
\n     to the landlord.  (See paragraph 9 of  2004  (1)  KLT@@
\n                                            AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     195 supra).  When a stranger other than the tenant is@@
\n     AAA
\n     found  in  the tenanted premises, primarily it is for
\n     the tenant to explain the jural relationship  between
\n     the  tenant and such stranger because the arrangement
\n     under which such stranger happens to be  in  physical
\n     possession of the premises is one which is within the
\n     exclusive knowledge   of  the  tenant.    In  such  a
\n     situation the burden is on the tenant  to  show  that
\n     there is  no sub lease or transfer of possession.  If
\n     the tenant fails to discharge the  said  burden,  the
\n     court can draw its own inference on facts.  (Joginder@@
\n                                                 AAAAAAAAA
\n     Singh Sodhi v.    Amar Kaur<\/a> 2004(8) Supreme 74).  The@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     mere fact that the licence for the trade  is  in  the
\n     name of the tenant cannot rule out the possibility of
\n     another person being in possession.  (Vide Unni Vacco@@
\n                                          AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     v\/s.   Thankamma  Greogory  and Others – 2003 (2) KLJ@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     (NOC) 5).  The landlord does  not  and  is  also  not@@
\n     AAAAAAAAA
\n     expected   to   know   the   nature  of  the  private
\n     arrangement between the tenant and the  person  found
\n     in the  premises.    In this case the landlord has in
\n     unmistakable terms stated in Ext.A1 that the  tenants
\n     have parted  with their possession to a stranger.  In
\n     answer to the said notice the stand that was taken by
\n     the tenant  in  Ext.A2  reply  notice  was  that  the
\n     arrangement  was  not subletting as alleged in Ext.A1
\n     notice but a partnership which  has  been  terminated
\n     and   at  present  respondents  1  and  3  alone  are
\n     conducting the hotel.  The tenants, however, did  not
\n     disclose  in  Ext.A2  the  name of the partner or the
\n     details of the partnership or the mode  by  which  it
\n     was terminated.      Under  these  circumstances  the
\n     failure to mention the name of the alleged sub-lessee
\n     in  the  Rent  Control  Petition  cannot  be   fatal.
\n     Similarly,  the failure to supply the name of the sub
\n     lessee and the failure to impugn  Ext.B1  partnership
\n     deed  as  a  sham document by amending the pleadings,
\n     also cannot be fatal to the landlord.    It  is  well
\n     settled  that  in  rent control proceedings a liberal
\n     and realistic approach and not  a  pedantic  approach
\n     should be made while construing the pleadings.  (Vide@@
\n                                                     AAAAA
\n     Thankappan v.    Reji  Xavier  1995  (1) KLT (SN) 10,@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     Subbiah Reddiar v.  Chinnamma 1991 (2)  KLT  461  and@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     Ram Narain  Arora  v.Asha  Rani<\/a> 1999 (1) SCC 141).  A@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     meticulous analysis of pleading  which  may  lead  to
\n     failure  of  justice  is  not expected to be adopted.
\n     (Vide Madhavan v.  Leelamma – 1991 (2) KLT 32)@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n
     \t9.  In paragraph 5 of the R.C.P.  it has been
\n     unequivocally  alleged  that  the   respondents   are
\n     understood  to  have  either transferred their rights
\n     under the lease or sublet  the  leasehold  to  a  3rd
\n     party  who  has  been running therein an eating house
\n     under the name and style of `Hotel Surya’, that  none
\n     of  the  respondents  is seen in the premises nor are
\n     they  associated  with  the  actual  conduct  of  the
\n     business  being  carried on there, that it is the 3rd
\n     party who is conducting the hotel business and who is
\n     in exclusive possession of the leasehold and that the
\n     respondents  have  no  manner  of  control  over   or
\n     possession  of  the  premises nor any interest in the
\n     business carried on therein.  According to us  Ext.A1
\n     notice and the aforementioned averments in the R.C.P.
\n     clearly  satisfy  the  legal  requirements  which the
\n     landlord is expected to satisfy.\n<\/p>\n
     \t10.  In a case as the present one where after
\n     receipt of the statutory notice the tenant terminates
\n     the  objectionable  arrangement,  it   may   not   be
\n     necessary  to  examine the nature of such arrangement
\n     because the landlord  will  be  entitled  to  file  a
\n     petition  for  eviction  only  if  the  objectionable
\n     arrangement still subsists even after the  expiry  of
\n     30 days  from  the date of the statutory notice.  But
\n     the definite stand which the respondents  have  taken
\n     is  that  there  was  no  sub  lease  or  parting  of
\n     possession but there was only a partnership which  is
\n     permissible  in  law  and  even  that partnership was
\n     terminated on receipt of Ext.A1 notice.  It  is  here
\n     that  Ext.C1  report  of  the  Advocate  Commissioner
\n     assumes great importance.  No doubt,  it  was  an  ex
\n     parte Commission.  No landlord who alleges subletting
\n     or  non-user  of  the tenanted premises by the tenant
\n     can  expect  to  prove  the  same  by  taking  out  a
\n     commission after  notice  to  the  tenant.    This is
\n     because in such a contingency  the  tenant  can  very
\n     well  stagemanage the situation and temporarily cause
\n     disappearance of the objectionable  contravention  by
\n     him.   Eventhough the respondents filed objections to
\n     Ext.C1 report and also subjected CW1 the Commissioner
\n     to  a  searching  and   incisive   cross-examination,
\n     nothing has been brought out to shake the credibility
\n     of  the  Commissioner  who  has  inter alia stated in
\n     Ext.C1 report  that  when  he  inspected  the  `Surya
\n     Hotel’ building on 28-6-1990 at 4 p.m.  one P.R.Rajan
\n     who  is  one  of  the  sons of Ramankutty Gupthan was
\n     conducting hotel  business,  that  besides  P.R.Rajan
\n     there  were  one  P.R.Pradeep and P.R.Nanda Kumar who
\n     are brothers of the said  P.R.Rajan  present  in  the
\n     premisses,  that  none  of the six respondents to the
\n     R.C.P.   was  present  there  and  that  there   were
\n     customers  taking  tea  and  food from the restaurant
\n     where four workers by name Ramankutty Nair,  Mohanan,
\n     Sulaiman  and  Sudheesh  were  found engaged in doing
\n     their work.  On enquiry by the Commissioner the three
\n     sons of Ramankutty Gupthan told him  that  they  were
\n     conducting  the  hotel  business  on  behalf of their
\n     father  Ramankutty  Gupthan  to  whom  the   disputed
\n     building was entrusted by the 3rd respondent and that
\n     their father Ramankutty Gupthan was at that time laid
\n     up and taking rest in their house at Kadampazhipuram.
\n     If  as  a  matter  of  fact, the partnership business
\n     which the tenants claimed to have started along  with
\n     Ramankutty  Gupthan  as  per  Ext.B1 partnership deed
\n     dated 19-5-1985 was actually terminated on  14-5-1990
\n     as  per  Ext.B21  as  the tenants would contend, then
\n     there was absolutely no business for any of the  sons
\n     of  Ramankutty  Gupthan  to conduct the restaurant on
\n     28-6-1990 when the Commissioner visited the premises.
\n     Ext.C1 not only  demonstrates  that  the  partnership
\n     deed  was merely a “make-believe” or a subterfuge but
\n     also   suggests    that    notwithstanding    Ext.B21
\n     termination,   the   earlier   arrangement  by  which
\n     Ramankutty Gupthan was  given  a  free  hand  in  the
\n     restaurant   business  and  the  premises  was  being
\n     continued and the  respondents  had  virtually  faded
\n     into insignificance.      The  decision  reported  in
\n     2004(4) SCC 794 shows that there also the  report  of@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     the  Commissioner  was  relied  on  to  hold that the
\n     partnership was a mere cloak.  It is in this  context
\n     that Ext.B1  partnership  deed  assumes relevance.  A
\n     perusal of the recitals in  Ext.B1  partnership  deed
\n     (which  is  not seen registered with the Registrar of
\n     Firms) will show that the only investment of the  3rd
\n     respondent   was  the  offering  of  the  lease  hold
\n     premises valued at Rs.65,000\/where as the  investment
\n     of Ramankutty Gupthan was Rs.65,000\/in cash.  What is
\n     more  interesting  is  the stipulation in Ext.B1 that
\n     even if the joint venture was to run at a  loss,  the
\n     3rd  respondent was assured a fixed amount of Rs.50\/-
\n     per day on all the six working days and Rs.20\/per day
\n     on all holidays.  Such  an  arrangement  without  any
\n     sharing  of  loss by one of the partners but ensuring
\n     an assured income to him even in the event  of  loss,
\n     can only be treated as a device carefully invented to
\n     ensure  consideration  to the tenant for allowing the
\n     premises to be used for conducting a restaurant.   It
\n     is  well  settled  that courts can lift or pierce the
\n     veil  of  partnership  set  up  as  a  camouflage  to
\n     circumvent  the  provisions  of the Rent Control Act.
\n     (Vide Libi v.  Devassy<\/a> 2002 (3) KLT 685 Paragraphs  5@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     and 11 and 2004 (4) SCC 794 paragraphs 8 and 9).@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n
     \t10.   There is yet another circumstance which
\n     fortifies the fact that Ext.B1 partnership was just a
\n     smoke screen put up with a view to cover up the  real
\n     truth   that   it  was  Ramankutty  Gupthan  who  was
\n     conducting  the  hotel  to  the  exclusion   of   the
\n     respondents.  PW2 who was the manager of the Palakkad
\n     branch   of   Lord   Krishna   Bank   proved   Ext.X1
\n     hypothecation agreement and Ext.X2  sanction  letter,
\n     has  deposed  before  court  that the loan for `Surya
\n     Hotel’ was sanctioned and the movables  scheduled  to
\n     Ext.X1  were hypothecated on 28-8-1987 on the premise
\n     that the said hotel absolutely belonged to Ramankutty
\n     Gupthan.  It was not revealed to the  bank  that  the
\n     hotel  business  carried  on in the petition schedule
\n     shop room actually belonged to the  partnership  firm
\n     said to  have  been  constituted  as  per Ext.B1.  So
\n     Ext.B1 arrangement was only a mirage conceived of for
\n     the only purpose of hoodwinking the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
     \t11.  The finding of the authorities  is  that
\n     Ext.B1  was  nothing  but  a disguise invented by the
\n     tenant to camouflage the real state of affairs.  Such
\n     a concurrent  finding  recorded  by  the  authorities
\n     below is  a  finding  of  fact (vide P.A.  Thomas and@@
\n                                     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     Another v.  M.Mohammed Tajuddin and  Another<\/a>  –  1996@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     (6)  SCC  399  and Patel Valmik Himatlal and Other v.@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     Patel Mohanlal Muljibhai – 1998 (7) SCC  383).    The@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     fact  that the licence continued to be in the name of
\n     the tenant, in such circumstances, is of no avail  to
\n     the tenant.   (Vide  2003  (2)  KLJ  (NOC)  5).   The@@
\n                   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     jurisdiction of this court  to  interfere  with  such
\n     concurrent  finding of fact based on evidence is very
\n     limited.  (Vide Patel  Valmik  Himathlal  and  Others@@
\n               AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     v.Patel Mohanlal  Mujibhai<\/a>  1998  (7)  SCC  383.   We@@
\n     AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n     therefore do not find any illegality, irregularity or
\n     impropriety in the impugned orders so as  to  warrant
\n     interference under Sec.  20 of the Act.
\n     \tThis Revision which is devoid of any merit is
\n     accordingly dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tM.Ramachandran,
\n     \t\t\t\tJudge<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tV.Ramkumar,
\n     \t\t\t\tJudge.\n<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\t\t(P.T.O)<\/p>\n
.PA<\/p>\n
     \tSoon after pronouncement of  the  order,  the
\n     learned  counsel  for the revision petitioners prayed
\n     for  time  to  surrender  vacant  possession  of  the
\n     premises.   Even  though  the learned counsel for the
\n     landlord stoutly opposed the prayer  contending  that
\n     the  sub-lessee  is  not  entitled  to  make any such
\n     request, we are inclined to grant two months time  to
\n     the   revision   petitioners   to   surrender  vacant
\n     possession of the  premises  provided  they  file  an
\n     undertaking to that effect before the Executing Court
\n     within two weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tM.Ramachandran,
\n     \t\t\t\tJudge<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tV.Ramkumar, Judge<\/p>\n
     ani.\n<\/p>\n
     \t\t\tM.Ramachandran,
\n     \t\t\t&
\n     \t\t\tV.Ramkumar, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
     \t\t\tC.R.P.No.1732\/2001<\/p>\n
     \t\t\tOrder<\/p>\n
     \t\t\tDated, 14th Dec.2004<\/p>\n
.PA<\/p>\n
.PA<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t=========================<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tV.RAMKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tNO.\n<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tJUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     \t\t\t\tDATED:\n<\/p>\n
     =========================<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 1732 of 2001(B) 1. KALYANI BHARATHAN … Petitioner Vs 1. N. ABDUL MUTHALIF … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH Coram Dated : 14\/12\/2004 O R D E R .SP 2 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-07T12:59:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-07T12:59:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3448,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-07T12:59:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-07T12:59:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-07T12:59:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004"},"wordCount":3448,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004","name":"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-07T12:59:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyani-bharathan-vs-n-abdul-muthalif-on-14-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kalyani Bharathan vs N. Abdul Muthalif on 14 December, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=262253"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262253\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}