The appellants preferred an appeal before the appellate authority.
The ownership Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2020.01.13 174802 IST Reason rights in the property were transferred in favour of the appellants in 1986 by a registered document.
This transfer assignment was intimated to original respondent No.1 number represented through his legal heirs as per a registered letter in May, 1986.
The aforesaid order resulted in cross revision petitions by both sides before the High Court of Kerala.
The numberice dated 15.12.1987 was stated to be a companyposite numberice and one eviction petition was filed quathe whole premises.
The appellants, thus, sent a legal numberice dated 15.12.1987 demanding surrender of possession of suit shop rooms and arrears of rent, and ultimately filed an eviction petition before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode for eviction under Sections 11 2 , 11 3 and 11 4 i 11 4 ii of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control , Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as the said Act .
The respondents did number prefer any appeal, and even after leave was granted, did number file any cross appeal cross objections.
Thus, eviction was granted in respect of rooms 3/472 and 3/476 vide order dated 9.7.1998.
Further, while sub letting was number proved qua Room No.
In terms of the impugned order dated 30.10.2007 qua Room No.3/471, numberbona fide need has been found and the position is the same in respect of Room No.3/472.
The appellants, aggrieved by this order, preferred a Special Leave Petition, in which leave was granted on 4.3.2011.
It is also alleged that the appellants required the premises bona fide two of the shops had been sublet by the original respondent without the companysent of the appellants and the value of the suit shops had been reduced materially and permanently by the respondents.
The allegation is that the original respondent sent rent through money orders only up to November, 1987, and stopped payment of rent thereafter.
In respect of Room No.3/471 though bona fide need of the appellants was number found, in Room No.3/472 the bona fide need of the appellant was stated to be proved but numbersub letting was stated to have been proved, and in respect of Room No.3/476 the sub letting was proved.
3/471, 3/472, 3/476, located in 1 29 in Survey 14 and Re survey 15/6, at the eastern side of Areekadu NirathuVazhi, Nallalam Amsom Desom, Kozhikode Taluk to one Beerankoya vide Signature Not Verified document dated 1.1.1967 for a monthly rent of Rs.75.
3/472, was stated to have been proved qua Room No.3/476.
The result of the aforesaid is that the endeavour of eviction from Room Nos.3/471 and 3/472 failed, while eviction order qua Room No.3/476 on the ground of sub letting was sustained.
The three rooms were 3/471, 3/472 and 3/476.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. One Pathummakutty, the owner, let out three shop room premises, defined as Room Nos.
