## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
**PRESENT:**
**THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH**
**THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938**
**RCREV..NO. 321 OF 2015 () --------------------------**
**R.C.A.NO.86/2014 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM**
**R.C.P.NO.82/2013 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM**
## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:**
**----------------------------------------**
**PONMUDI FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED B-11, V.B.UDYOG, ST.VINCENT ROAD, THRIKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., PIN-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR K.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.R.SANJITH SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH**
## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:**
**------------------------------------**
**1. M/S.SNEHA ASSOCIATES, G-105, SURAJ, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, T SUDHAKARAN, S/O.A.THRIVIKRAMADAS, AGED 57 YEARS, G-105, SURAJ, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.**
**2. T.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.A.THRIVIKRAMADAS, G-105, SURAJ, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.**
**3. LASTHA S.DAS, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.T.SUDHAKARAN, G-105, SURAJ, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.**
**4. T.RAJEEVAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.A.THRIVIKRIAMADAS, G-105, SURAJ, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.**
**5. PRABHA RAJEEV, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.T.RAJEEVAN, G-105, SURAJ, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE R1-R5 BY ADV. SMT.SIJI JOY**
**THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
**SKV**
## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ.**
------------------------------------------------------
R.C.R. No.321 of 2015 ------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of June, 2016
## ORDER
## **K.Surendra Mohan, J.**
The tenant is before us in revision. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam in R.C.P.No.82 of 2013, confirmed by Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A No.86 of 2014. The respondents herein are the land lords. The 1[st] respondent is a partnership firm, while the other respondents are the partners thereof. The revision petitioner had taken the premises on rent for the purpose of conducting a hotel business as per Ext.A2 agreement.
2. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent alleging that, the petitioner had sub-let the premises to M/s Jayalakshmy, another partnership firm, as per Ext.A5 agreement. Despite the issue of notice requiring the tenant to terminate the lease agreement, the tenant has not done so. Therefore, the land lord sought eviction of tenant.
3. The Rent Control Petition was contested by the revision petitioner. It was admitted that, the premises were
R.C.R. No.321 of 2015 2
taken on rent as per Ext.A2 agreement, which is a registered lease agreement, for a period of 10 years from 1.11.2007 to 31.11.2017. It was contended that the Rent Control Petition was not maintainable since, the period of lease had not expired. The building was taken on rent for conducting the business of boarding and lodging. The allegation that, the terms of the agreement were violated, was denied. According to the revision petitioner, the firm was in possession, occupation and enjoyment of the premises as per the terms of the agreement. What has been done as per Ext.A5 is only to let rooms in bulk to M/s Jayalakshmy Silks for accommodating their staff members. A perusal of the terms of the agreement would show that, the rooms have been let out on daily rent basis. For the above reason, it was contended that, the Rent Control Petition was liable to be dismissed.
4. The Rent Control Court considered the respective contentions, after adducing evidence. The evidence in the case consists of Exts. A1 to A5 documents and the oral evidence of PW1 on the side of the land lord. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on the side of the tenant.
5. The Rent Control Court on an appreciation of the
R.C.R. No.321 of 2015 3
evidence on record, in the light of the terms of Exts.A2 and A5 agreements found that there was sub-letting of the tenanted premises. Therefore, an order of eviction was granted. The aggrieved tenant carried the matter in appeal. On a reappreciation of the evidence, the Appellate Authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and has dismissed R.C.A.No.86 of 2014. The revision petitioner tenant challenges the said judgment.
6. According to Advocate Sanjith R, who appears for the revision petitioner, this is a case in which the entire proceedings have been initiated by the land lord without any bonafides whatsoever. The terms of Ext.A2 agreement, specifically permit the tenant to conduct boarding and lodging business from the premises. The conduct of lodging business necessitates parting with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of the 3[rd] parties, who are permitted to occupy the rooms let out. Rooms are given on rent only on daily basis. The terms of Ext.A2 expressly permits the revision petitioner to canvass business through all available means. Accordingly, he has canvassed business and has secured bulk booking for 59 rooms. He has not parted with his exclusive possession of the rooms except to the extent, the same is necessitated for
R.C.R. No.321 of 2015 4
conduct of the lodging business. The premises continue to be in his exclusive possession and control. Therefore, it is contended that, both the authorities below have erred in finding that there was sub-letting of the premises. The Counsel also places reliance on a decision of this Court to support his contention that, parting with exclusive possession is necessary to constitute sub-letting.
7. Advocate Reji George, who appears for the respondent land lord refutes the contentions of the counsel for the revision petitioner. The counsel points out that the terms of Ext.A5 agreement clearly indicate, parting of exclusive possession by the tenant. It is contended that, both the authorities below have addressed the issues in the proper prospective and that, there are no grounds for interference in revision.
8. Heard.
9. We have perused Exts.A2 and A5 agreements. Clauses 9 and 10 of Ext.A2 specifically prohibit the tenant from assigning, transferring, conveying or sub-letting his interest to any person or persons. Permission to occupy the premises by whatever mode inclusive of either leave or license is prohibited. The Clause also entitles the land lord to terminate
R.C.R. No.321 of 2015 5
the lease and to demand and obtain vacant possession of the premises in the event of contravention of the said clause. The Clause permits such sub lease, only with the written permission of the lessor. Clause 10 further provides that, the lessee shall give rooms or premise or building to customers only on daily basis and that the rooms shall not be used for any anti-social activities.
10. A perusal of the terms of Ext.A5 shows that, the first party therein, M/s Jayalakshmy has been conferred the right of management of the said rooms. The house keeping of the rooms, maintenance of the common areas, common toilets, common bath rooms etc. mentioned in the Schedule are also the responsibility of M/s Jayalakshmy. The term of Ext.A5 is for a period of five calender years from the date of the agreement. Clause 2.1 thereof makes it clear that, during the subsistence of the agreement, the revision petitioner is not permitted to allot the rooms mentioned in the Schedule to anyone else except for the use and occupation of the staff of the sub-lessee alone. Clause 2.2 thereof restrains the revision petitioner from allotting any of the said rooms to any third party except those nominated by the sub lessee. In view of Clause 2.3, the revision petitioner is prevented from allotting a
R.C.R. No.321 of 2015 6
room to the third party even if the same is vacant. The above clause clearly shows that, the revision petitioner has parted with his exclusive possession of the tenanted premises. Clause 10 of Ext.A5 which prohibits the letting of the rooms except on daily basis has also been violated since Ext.A5 is for a period of five years.
11. A conjoint reading of the various clauses of Ext.A5 agreement, clearly shows that the tenant has parted with his exclusive possession of the tenanted premises. Though the counsel for the revision petitioner has put forward a contention that the Rent Control Petition was filed only because the land lord wants to give out the tenanted premises to M/s Jayalakshmy, directly, we are not satisfied that, the said allegation even if accepted as true would in any way affect the outcome of this case in any way. This is for the reason that, the tenant has no right to part with his exclusive possession of the premises. Since, the tenant has violated the terms of the agreement Ext.A2, or we do not find any infirmity in findings of the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority that, the ground of sub-letting has been made out in this case.
12. The Counsel for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in **Karshaka Union v**
R.C.R. No.321 of 2015 7
**Bahuleyan** [1996 (2) KLT 747], particularly, paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 to support his contention that, there must be parting of exclusive possession in order to prove sub-lease. In the present case, as already found by us, there has been parting with exclusive possession of the tenanted premises as per Ext.A5. To cap it all, we notice that, there is evidence in this case only on the side of the land lord. The tenant has not even chosen to mount the witness box to swear to the case pleaded by him. In the above state of affairs, we find no merit in the contentions put forward before us.
13. For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the findings of the authorities below or to grant any of the reliefs sought for in this revision.
In the result, this Rent Control Revision is dismissed.
Sd/-
**K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE**
SKV
