O R D E R

Surendra Mohan, J.

The landlords, the legal representatives of the original title holder are in revision. The landlord had leased out seven rooms on the upper floor of a building owned by him to the respondent as per a lease agreement dated 03.10.2007. We shall refer to the parties herein, in accordance with their status in the Rent Control Petition.

2. The landlord had filed RCP No.38 of 2008 before the Rent Control court, Tirur alleging non-occupation of the tenanted premises by the tenant, as stipulated by Section 11 (4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The ₹

premises were leased out on a monthly rent of 21,000/-. The Rent Control Petition was resisted by the tenant contending that he was prevented from occupying the premises for the reason that, the landlord had not given him consent letter, which was necessary for obtaining a licence from the local authority. Therefore, according to the tenant his non-occupation was for justifiable reasons. The case of the tenant was that, at the time of execution of the lease ₹

deed, he had paid an amount of 19 lakhs as 'pagidy'. The receipt was agreed to be