JAMES E V Vs. GRACE THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 is Ext. P-7 judgment of the District Judge, Kottayam dismissing RCRP No. 1/2010 filed by the writ Petitioners, who are conducting an Ayurvedic Hospital in the building in question, a substantial building situated in a very important locality of Kottayam Municipal town. RCRP No. 1/2010 was a revision filed under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 against an order of delivery passed by the Principal Munsiff, Kottayam in execution of eviction order passed against the revision Petitioners in RC (O.P) No. 10/2007. The ground prominently raised by the writ Petitioners before the Munsiff Court was that the order of eviction passed in RC (O.P.) 10/2007 was a nullity and hence not executable. The above contention was repelled by the learned Munsiff and under the impugned order the same is confirmed by the learned District Judge.

(2.) Mr. Liji J. Vadakkedom, learned Counsel for the Petitioners addressed strenuous arguments on the basis of the grounds raised in the writ petition assailing the order of the District Judge. The learned Counsel submitted that the order of eviction under Section 11(3), which was passed by the Rent Control Court, was void. According to him, though the order contains a finding that the need projected by the landlady is bona fide, the order is silent as regards the operation of the first and second provisos of Sub-section (3) of Section 11. According to the learned Counsel, it is obligatory on the part of the Rent Control Court to consider the operation of the two provisos which are integral parts of Sub-section (3) of Section 11. As the operation of the two provisos was not considered by the Rent Control Court, the eviction order passed by that Court was bad and unexecutable. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Liji J. Vadakkedom on the judgment of this Court in Thomas v. Easo, 1999 1 KerLT 138. The learned Counsel submitted that it is clearly held therein that any order of eviction passed under Section 11(3) on the basis of a compromise without referring to the second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 11 is contrary to the provisions of the Act and hence not executable. As a last plea, Mr. Liji requested that the writ Petitioners be granted at least six months time from today for surrendering the premises as it will be very difficult for them to locate alternate premises for shifting their Ayurvedic Hospital.

(3.) All the submissions of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners were forcefully resisted by Sri Bechu Kurian Thomas learned Counsel for the Respondents. He pointed out that the eviction order was passed on the basis of a compromise. The learned Counsel submitted that though the writ Petitioners did not honour their commitments under the compromise order, they have actually enjoyed the benefit of the long duration of two and half years time which was granted to them under the compromise. The building was to have been surrendered on 18-6-2010 on the terms of the compromise on condition that the arrears of rent which falls due during the continuance of possession is promptly paid. The Petitioners defaulted payment of rent and it was only recently that the rent in arrears was discharged. The Petitioners, who did not honour the compromise entered into by them, may not be given any indulgence. The learned Counsel also submitted that having regard to the locational importance and advantages of the building, if the building is let out today, it will fetch a monthly rent of Rs. two lakhs. What the revision Petitioners have been paying is a paltry sum of Rs. 25,000 per month, submitted counsel.