O R D E R

Ajithkumar, J.

This is a rent control revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The 3rd respondent in R.C.P.No.54 of 2017 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Ponnani, is the revision petitioner. In the rent control petition filed by the 1st respondent, who is the landlord, sought for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. Eviction was ordered under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act. The petitioner herein preferred an appeal as R.C.A.No.24 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Tirur, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act, but it failed. Hence, this revision petition.

2. The 1st respondent did not file an appeal, whereby dismissal of the eviction petition as regards claim under Section 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) has become final. Therefore, the matters relevant for consideration are relating to the grounds for eviction under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act.

3. The 1st respondent let out the petition schedule building to respondent Nos.2 and 3. They, in the name of a partnership firm, were conducting a hotel in the petition schedule building. The 4th respondent was subsequently added as a partner. However, they later sub-let the building to the petitioner unauthorisedly. The building was let out for a daily rent of Rs.500/-. Rent since September, 2016 has been in arrears. The 1st respondent is a retired employee of ISRO, Thiruvananthapuram. He wants the petition schedule building to start a hotel of his own.

4. The aforesaid grounds on which eviction was sought by the 1st respondent were refuted by the petitioner by filing a counter statement. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein remained exparte in the rent control petition. The contentions raised by the petitioner are as follows:

The building was availed on rent by the petitioner from the 1st respondent on 12.06.2015 on a daily rent of Rs.600/- per day. No rent is in arrears. He has been conducting a hotel in the petition schedule building, after obtaining a licence from Kalady Grama Panchayat. The 1st respondent demanded to surrender vacant possession of the building, which the petitioner refused. When the 1st respondent tried to forcibly evict him the petitioner had to file O.S.No.30 of 2017 and he obtained an order of temporary injunction. It is in the said circumstances the rent control petition was filed without any bonafides. The need urged is only a ruse for eviction. The petitioner is not a sub-tenant. Simultaneously, he contended that the 1st respondent is bound to prove the landlord-tenant relationship.

5. The Rent Control Court held trial on the said rival pleadings. Oral evidence of PW1 was recorded and Exts.A1 to A9 were received in evidence. On considering this evidence and hearing both sides, eviction was ordered by the Rent Control Court. Having failed in the appeal preferred under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act also, the petitioner has come up with this revision petition.

6. On 12.08.2021, when this matter came up for admission, notice was ordered to the respondents. Although notice was given to all the respondents, 1st respondent alone entered appearance through his counsel.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset contended that the petitioner set forth valid contentions, which, if proved, would have resulted in dismissal of the rent control petition, but the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence. The learned counsel by contending that the said failure was on account of petitioner’s lack of information and also a wrong legal advice, and therefore, this case requires a remand. It is submitted that a fair trial did not take place in the matter, which resulted miscarriage of justice and total prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Cour