The court emphasized that establishing the landlord-tenant relationship is critical for eviction under the Kerala Buildings Act, and factual determinations by authorities are generally upheld unless proven erroneous.

O R D E R

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The review petitioner was the respondent in a proceedings for eviction instituted under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act). Though the Rent Control Court dismissed the eviction petition, the Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction of the respondent in appeal, and this court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Authority, in terms of the order sought to be reviewed. The petitioner seeks review of the said decision of this court in this proceedings. Parties are referred to hereafter, as they appear in the eviction petition for convenience, as done in the order sought to be reviewed also.

2. The subject-matter of the eviction petition is the shop room portion at the southern end of building bearing T.C.No.25/1522. It is stated by the petitioners in the eviction petition that the said building and the land on which it is put up, belonged to the grandmother of the petitioners, Valliammal; that the subject room was taken on lease by the respondent from Valliammal on 02.09.1985 for the purpose of running a workshop; that Valliammal settled 1.25 cents of property and the building bearing T.C.No.25/1522 in favour of the mother of the petitioners and the petitioners purchased the same from their mother. It is also stated by the petitioners in the eviction petition that the respondent had earlier attempted to alter the nature of the tenanted premises; that Valliammal, in the circumstances, instituted a suit against the respondent as O.S.No.679 of 1986 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the same was decreed restraining the respondent from altering the nature of the tenanted premises. It is also stated by the petitioners in the eviction petition that on acquiring title to the building, they permitted the respondent to continue occupying the tenanted premises, although he did not execute any rent deed in their favour. It is also stated by the petitioners that the second petitioner who was deserted by her husband and who had no avocation, intended to start a bakery business in the tenanted premises. It is on the aforesaid basis that the petitioners sought eviction of the respondent under Sections

11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.

3. The respondent filed objections to the eviction petition. He admitted the tenancy arrangement between him and Valliammal as pleaded by the petitioners in the eviction petition. He, however, contended that the premises covered by the tenancy arrangement aforesaid has been surrendered by him after the decree in O.S.No.679 of 1986 and that he is not occupying any portion of the building bearing T.C.No.25/1522. It was also contended by him that the room which he is occupying at present is the room bearing T.C.No.25/1524. According to him, the said room is not one held by Valliammal and that therefore, there is no landlord- tenant relationship between him and the petitioners in respect of the same.

4. The Rent Control Court dismissed the eviction petition holding that the petitioners could not establish that the respondent is occupying any portion of the building bearing T.C.No.25/1522 owned by them. However, in appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court and held that the premises occupied by the respondent is part of the building bearing T.C.No.25/1522 owned by the petitioners; that it was in respect of the said premises that the respondent had entered into the tenancy arrangement with Valliammal and that the respondent cannot, therefore, be heard to contend that there is no landlord- tenant relationship between him and the petitioners. Consequently, the Appellate Authority accepted the case set out by the petitioners that the rent of the premises is in arrears since 01.07.2006 as pleaded by the petitioners. It was also found by the Appellate Authority that the need set out by the petitioners for eviction is bona fide and that the respondent is not entitled to th