T K LATHIKA Vs. SETH KARSANDAS JAMNADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A landlord approached the Rent Control Court prematurely and lost the cause not only regarding the timing of her approach to the Court but on merits as well. The High Court found that the claim of the landlord for eviction of the tenant from the building lost its tenability on account of the factors which sprouted up pendente lite. The unsuccessful landlord has, therefore, reached this Court by special leave.

(2.) The tenant has been residing in the building of the landlord for nearly half century by now, (a few more years from now may mark the golden jubilee year of the tenancy). When the building was originally leased in 1956, it was in the ownership of appellant's father. He executed a gift deed in favour of his daughter (the appellant) on 2-8-1980, as per Ext. B-10. But the appellant, bereft of patience to wait for the expiry of the moratorium period of one year, hastened to file the petition for eviction of the tenant on 1-7-1981 under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short "the Act." Appellant made an endeavour to circumvent the quarantine prescribed under the sub-section on the premise that the tenant had executed a fresh lease agreement in her favour on 18-8-1980 (Ext. A. 1).

(3.) Section 11(3) of the Act reads thus: