Back
2002 Supreme(Ker) 165
Judges : K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,K.A.MOHAMED SHAFI
Mary - Appellant
Versus
Kunjanam - Respondent
Case No : CRP. No. 1614 of 1995
Decided On : 03/14/2002
Advocates Appeared :
For Petitioner: B.Radhakrishnan, Advocate. For Respondent : R1 to R10, V. Giri, Advocate.
Headnote:
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) – U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act – Rent Control Act – Section 2(6) – Tenant is the revision petitioner – Eviction was sought, Rent Controller dismissed the petition allowed the petition – Order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority – Hence this revision by the tenant – Held, in this case convicted on facts that it was Mary who was conducting business on the death of the husband for and on behalf of all others – It was Mary, who was paying rent – Sales tax registration is also in the name of Mary – On facts also we have convinced that Mary was conducting the business on behalf of her family and consequently non-impleadment of the children of Mary is no consequence – Objection raised with regard to the non-maintainability of the petition is rejected – Court have indicated that on the death of the original tenant tenancy rights devolved on the heirs as joint tenants and it is a single tenancy – Consequently Rent Control Petition filed against one of the heirs could be maintainable and the order passed is binding on them – In the above mentioned facts court find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below – Revision Petition Dismissed
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
Tenant is the revision petitioner, Eviction was sought for under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965. Rent Controller dismissed the petition under Section 11(2)(b) and allowed the petition under section 11(3). Order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Hence this revision by the tenant.
2. For the purpose of disposal of this matter we may refer to the parties according to the status in the Rent Control Petition. Petition schedule premises was let out to the husband of the first respondent Mary as per lease deed executed on 18-3-1970 by the petitioners and second respondent. The period of tenancy was terminated on 18.3.1973. Petition schedule premises is on the ground floor of a two-stored building. In the upstair portion the petitioners are conducting business by name Varghese Watch Company. On the death of the husband of the first respondent, she is occupying the ground floor of the premises. Petitioners 2,3 and 4 are the sons of the first petitioner and petitioners 5,6 and 7 are the legal heirs of Varghese, the deceased son of the first petitioner. Sixth petitioner who is the son of deceased Varghese in now doing watch repair works in the Varghese Watch Company. He is dependant on the first petitioner. While the rent control petition was pending he got married. He wanted to start a business of his own. Petitioners have no other building of their own for starting business. First petitioner directed the tenant to vacate the premises. A registered notice was sent on 31-3-1989 since she did not vacate to which the tenant replied. Rent control petition was then preferred under Section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act.
3. Tenant resisted the petition. It was stated that the petition schedule premises was taken on lease by the husband of the first respondent for starting a partnership business by name C.L. Joseph & Company. Partnership was dissolved on 18-3-1970. After dissolution of partnership the husband of the first respondent had executed another rent deed on 18-3-1970. On the death of the husband of the first respondent, the first respondent is in occupation of the premises on the same terms and conditions of the original lease deed. it was contended that apart from the first respondent other heirs of Varghese have also got interest in the tenanted premises. Petition filed without joining them in the array of parties is not maintainable. Further it was stated that the 6th petitioner is also working in a watch company by name Chirayath Watch Company. Though he has married he has got income to support his family. Further it was stated that an earlier petition RCP. 87/73 was filed for eviction of the tenant and that application was dismissed. It was contended there was no change of circumstance warranting another petition for eviction. On 29-11-1990 first respondent filed additional objection stating as follows:
"After the objection was filed by the first respondent, the husband of the first respondent's daughter expired on 25.1.1990. The daughter of the first respondent has 3 children of aged 10, 7 and 4. The daughter of the first respondent and her children are now maintained by the first respondent. The first respondent is maintaining her daughter and children out of the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule premises. The first respondent also incurred heavy debt for the treatment of her husband. The debt is repaid by the first respondent out of the income from the business conducted in the premises. All the heirs of deceased Joseph, the husband of the first respondent are not made parties to the petition. The petition is therefore bad for non-jointer of necessary parties."
Counsel appearing for the tenant took us through oral and documentary evidence adduced. It was contended that the need projected by the 6th petitioner is only a ruse to evict the tenant. Counsel contended earlier RCP. 87/73 was filed under Section
