Joint eviction petition by landlords permissible under law; High Court limited to examining legality without re-evaluation of evidence.

ORDER

Ajithkumar, J

The revision petitioners are respondents - tenants in R.C.P No.55 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kuthuparamba. Respondents-landlords filed the R.C.P seeking eviction under Section 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . As per the order dated 31.08.2013, the petition was allowed on all the three grounds. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Act. Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II), Thalassery dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners filed this revision under Section 20 of the Act.

2. On 18.12.2018, this revision was admitted to file. Execution of the order of eviction was stayed for a period of three weeks. Interim order of stay has been extended from time to time.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Eviction of the petitioners from the petition schedule shop rooms was sought on the basis of the allegations and averments that the 1st petitioner, who is the tenant defaulted payment of rent from April 2007 onwards, the respondents-landlords, who are sisters need both the shop rooms for starting a tailoring unit and readymade textiles and that the 1st petitioner unauthorisedly had sublet both the shop rooms to the 2nd petitioner.

5. The petitioners resisted the Rent Control Petition by filing a counter. They contended that the petition was not maintainable since two landlords together filed a single petition which is not allowed in law. Regarding the allegation of arrears of rent, it was contended that rent used to be remitted in the account of the husband of the 2nd respondent and therefore there is no arrears of rent. The need urged by the respondents is disputed by contending that there was no intention for them to start such a business. The allegation of sub tenancy is denied. It was contended in that regard that on 01.06.2006, respondents allowed the 2nd petitioner to hold the petition schedule shop rooms as a tenant after accepting the surrender of lease by the 1st petitioner. Thus they contend that the 2nd petitioner is the tenant as attorn to by the respondents. During trial, the 1st respondent was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A9 were proved on the side of the respondents. Petitioners are RWs 1 and 2. Besides them RWs 3 to 5 were also examined by the petitioners. On their side, Exts.B1 to B7 were marked. Exts.X1 and X2 and C1 were also brought on record. After considering the said evidence, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the case put forward by the respondents in regard to the arrears of rent, bonafide need and sublease was proved and accordingly eviction was ordered. The challenge to the findings of the Rent Control Court before the Appellate Authority was not successful.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised essentially contentions regarding the maintainability of the petition and lack of bonafides to the plea of need. The learned counsel fairly conceded that the petitioners do not have a tenable case with reference to the first and second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. As regards the allegation of sub tenancy, the learned counsel raised a contention that the evidence of RWs 1 and 2 should have been accepted and the courts below should not have rendered a finding that the 2nd petitioner was the sub tenant.

7. The contention of the petitioners regarding maintainability is that the respondents, being owners of two independent rooms, could not have filed a single Rent Control