9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Arrears of Rent [Section 11(2)(b)] 2. Bona Fide Own Occupation [Section 11(3)] 3. Cessation of Occupation [Section 11(4)(v)] Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Arrears of Rent [Section 11(2)(b)]: The landlord sought eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. However, the Rent Control Court did not grant eviction under this ground as the tenant discharged the entire arrears before the commencement of the trial. 2. Bona Fide Own Occupation [Section 11(3)]: The landlord also sought eviction for bona fide own occupation, but the Rent Control Court did not grant eviction under this ground either. 3. Cessation of Occupation [Section 11(4)(v)]: - Allegations and Defense: The landlord alleged that the tenant ceased to occupy the building without reasonable cause 1 1/2 years prior to the institution of the rent control petition filed on 24th September 1991. The tenant contended that he never ceased to occupy the building and was conducting business in coconuts and cigars, deriving his livelihood from it. He also mentioned his cardiac ailments and his visit to a cardiologist on the day of the Advocate Commissioner's visit. - Evidence Considered: The evidence included oral testimonies of the landlord (P.W.1), two witnesses including the Advocate Commissioner (P.W.2 and P.W.3), the tenant (R.W.1), Lawyer notice (Ext. A-2), Assessment Register (Ext. A-4), licenses issued by Malabar Marketing Company (Exts. B-1 and B-2), and medical treatment documents (Exts. B-3 and B-4 series). The Rent Control Court relied heavily on the Advocate Commissioner's report (Ext. C-1) which indicated that the premises were closed with cobwebs inside, the testimony of P.W.3, and the assessment register (Ext. A-4). - Rent Control Court's Decision: The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(v) based on the evidence presented, particularly the Advocate Commissioner's report and the lack of credible evidence from the tenant regarding the conduct of business in the premises. - Appellate Authority's Decision: The appellate authority set aside the Rent Control Court's order, stating that the landlord had not established that the tenant ceased to occupy the building continuously for six months immediately prior to the filing of the application without reasonable cause. The appellate authority found the landlord's evidence insufficient and noted that the Commissioner's report did not conclusively prove cessation of occupation during the statutory period. It also observed that the assessment register (Ext. A-4) covered only part of the crucial six-month period and that the tenant's evidence, though flawed, did not relieve the landlord of his burden of proof. - High Court's Analysis: The High Court agreed that physical occupation is required for a commercial building, and if no business is conducted and the premises remain closed, it justifies the presumption of cessation of occupation. The High Court found that the appellate authority was overly focused on the burden of proof and did not realistically appreciate the evidence, including the Commissioner's report and the assessment register. The High Court noted that the tenant failed to produce statutory trade licenses or other substantial evidence to prove ongoing business activities. - Decision: The High Court set aside the appellate authority's judgment and restored the Rent Control Court's eviction order under Section 11(4)(v). The tenant was ordered to vacate the building by 31st December 2003, with each party bearing their own costs. Conclusion: The High Court concluded that the landlord's evidence was sufficient to establish cessation of occupation and shifted the burden to the tenant, who failed to rebut it satisfactorily. The eviction order under Section 11(4)(v) was upheld, requiring the tenant to vacate the premises by the specified date.
|
