IMPORTANT POINT
Eviction under Section 11(4)(v) requires actual occupation for business, not mere physical presence; concurrent findings of lower courts upheld.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P. No. 28 of 2019 of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara who suffered an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The appeal preferred by them before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara as R.C.A.No. 23 of 2022 also met with failure. Challenging the concurrent verdicts of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority, the petitioners are here with this revision.

2. The petition schedule shop room which originally belonged to the husband of the 1st respondent, bequeathed upon his wife and children who are the respondents-landlords. It was leased out to the husband of the 1st petitioner in the year 1987. After the death of the 1st petitioner’s husband, the petitioners continued to be the tenants of the shop room with its fair rent fixed at Rs.900/- per month from 11.03.2005 onwards. Complaining the non-payment of rent from 12.12.2015 onwards, and the cessation of occupation for a period of more than one year, the respondents-landlords approached the Rent Control Court for eviction of the revision petitioners. During the pendency of the above proceedings, the petitioners cleared the arrears of rent. Though the petitioners disputed the allegation of cessation of occupation, the Rent Control Court, after analysing the evidence on record, ordered eviction on the ground envisaged under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. The Appellate Authority after a re-appraisal of the evidence, upheld the verdict of the Rent Control Court. In the present revision, the petitioners would contend that the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority went wrong in analysing the evidence and applying the principles of law.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners-tenants and the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords.

4. The point to be decided is whether the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority directing eviction of the revision petitioners under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act, is liable to be interfered with.

5. The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties are not in dispute. Though the revision petitioners raised a contention before the Appellate Authority that the proceedings are not maintainable since all the co-owners of the petition schedule building are not impleaded, the above challenge has been rightly repelled by the said authority by relying on Manager, Sai Service Station Limited v. Dileep Ganesh, 2022 (1) KLT 845 : 2022 (1) KHC 700 and outlining the principle that if the owners are having no conflict of interest, one co-owner can file a petition for eviction of the tenant without the junction of the other co-owners in the proceedings. There is absolutely no scope for the above challenge raised by the revision petitioners.

6. As regards the cessation of occupation of the petition schedule shop room by the revision petitioners, the trial court as well as the Appellate Authority placed reliance upon the evidence adduced by the 3rd respondent and Advocate Commissioner as PW1 and PW2, and held that the landlords successfully established their contention that the petition schedule shop room was being kept unoccupied for a period of more than one year past the institution of the R.C.P. True that the revision petitioners assailed the evidence of the landlords alleging inconsistency in their versions regarding the period of non-occupation. However, it has been observed by the Appellate Authority that the evidence adduced by PW1 on 10.11.2020 pointing to the non-occupation of the petition schedule shop room by the tenants for a period of three years prior to that date would clearly establish the cessation of occupation for a period of more than one year prior to the date of institution of R.C.P. The Appellate Authority also rightly held that the exact date from which the shop remained closed is not having much re