RAJU Vs. PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising for consideration in this case is as to whether the tenant of a building, who is ordered to be evicted under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, can claim value of improvements, if any, effected to the building in question under the provisions of S.4 of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant of a building owned by respondents 3 to 5. In proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Control Act,) the petitioner was ordered to be evicted and the eviction order has become final. The landlords - respondents 3 to 5 - filed E. P. No. 396/98 in R. C. P. No. 96/92, before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thrissur for execution of the said decree. The petitioner herein filed objections. Subsequently, the petitioner filed E. A. No. 1304/99 to receive an additional counter statement. In the said additional counter he wanted to claim value of improvements. This was rejected by the Munsiff stating that there is no bona fides in the claim put forward by the petitioner. It was also stated that the claim is not sustainable in the E. P. The petitioner filed revision against the said order before the District Court as R. C. R. P. No. 2/99. The same was dismissed by Ext. P1 order. Since, according to the District Judge, in view of the various decisions of this Court, a building tenant to whom the provisions of the Rent Control Act are applicable is not entitled to claim value of improvements, the petitioner was requested to explain the maintainability of such a petition at the stage of execution. The contention of the petitioner was that though the Rent Control Court does not have the powers to direct payment of value of improvements by the landlord, an execution court being a civil court can direct payment of value of improvements under the provisions of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements under the provisions of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 (for short 'the Tenants Improvements Act'). The said revision was rejected holding that the application to receive additional counter is belated and that the contention sought to be raised is illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner has 'filed this Original Petition seeking to quash Ext. P1 order. He has also sought for directions to respondents 1 and 2 to keep all "proceedings to dispossess the petitioner till the decision on the question of improvements under S.4 of the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958. He also sought for a direction to the first respondent to accept the additional counter affidavit.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under S.14 of the Rent Control Act, an order of eviction passed under the said Act shall be executed by the Munsiff having original jurisdiction over the area in which the building is situated as if it were a decree passed by him. He further submitted that in view of the provisions of S.14, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in so far as it related to the execution of decrees are applicable. He submitted that under S.47 of the C.P.C. all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. He also took me to the provisions of O.21 R.97 to 101 in that regard. The provisions of R.101 was stressed in that regard. The counsel, on that basis, submitted that the question regarding the entitlement to value of improvements effected by the tenant is a matter which comes within the purview of S.47 read with O.21 R.97 to 101, which if taken in the objection to the execution, is a matter which has to be determined by the executing Court. He also submitted that the petitioner squarely fell within the ambit of the definition of 'tenant' in S.2(d) of the Tenants Improvement Act and therefore, he is entitled to value of improvements as provided in S.4 thereof. The counsel further submitted that when the petitioner by way of additional objection has raised the question regarding value of improvements the learned Munsiff ought to have allowed the petitioner to raise the said objection and determined the question as directed in S.47 and R.101 of O.21 of the C.P.C. He submitted that both the Munsiff and the District Judge seriously erred in not allowing the petitioner to raise the question of value of improvements by way of additional counter affidavit and in holding that the said claim is unsustainable. .