BALACHANDRAN Vs. P N K PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this Revision came up for admission, this court ordered notice on admission. Pursuant to the notice the contesting respondent has appeared. When the matter came up again, both sides were heard.

(2.) The legal representatives of the landlord who are the respondents in an application filed by the tenant under S.11(12) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The landlord, the predecessor of the revision petitioners, one Janaki Amma applied for eviction of the tenant, the respondent herein under S.11(3) of the Act on the plea that she bona fide needed the petition schedule building for her residence. The petition schedule building was a godown while it was in the possession of the tenant. An order for eviction was passed was affirmed in appeal and was also affirmed in revision. Subsequent to the order in revision and the failure in his attempt to challenge that order in the Original Petition filed before this court, the tenant undertook before the executing court to vacate the building. Honouring his undertaking the tenant vacated the building on 26.9.1987. Thus the landlord Janaki Amma came into possession of the building pursuant to an order for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act on 26.9.1987.

(3.) S.11(12) of the Act gives right to the tenant to apply for restoration of possession in a case where the landlord after obtaining an order for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act does not occupy the building within one month of obtaining possession or ceases to occupy the building before the expiry of six months from the date of getting possession of the building. The tenant filed the application I.A. 2910 of 1988 under S.4 of the Act in a case where the tenant does not apply for restoration within one month of the accrual of a right in him to apply for restoration, held that the application filed beyond one month from such accrual of right is barred by time and could not be entertained. Thus the Rent Controller dismissed the application for restoration. The appellate authority on a reappraisal of the materials agreed with the Rent Controller in holding that the landlord had not occupied the building within one month of obtaining possession on 26.9.1987 and the tenant has made out a case for restoration of possession. The appellate authority held that S.11(13) of the Act did not prescribe a period of limitation for making an application under S.11(12) of the Act but that only enabled the Accommodation Controller to act in terms of S.4 of the Act inspite of the exclusion contained in S.4(1) of the Act and in a case where Accommodation Controller had not acted in terms of S.11(13) of the Act the right of the tenant is not lost so long as the application is not unreasonably delayed. The appellate authority relied on the decision of this court in Thomas v. Kunjithomman ( 1981 KLT 708 ) in support of its conclusion. The appellate authority thus reversed the order of the Rent Controller and allowed the application filed by the tenant under S.11(12) of the Act.