(1.) UNDER challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P7 order passed by the Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara in RCRP.1/06. The above RCRP was a Section 14 revision directed against Ext.P5 order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam. The ground which is prominently raised in this petition is that Ext.P5 order which is an order allowing a petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(2)(c) for vacating the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) has been passed without jurisdiction. According to Sri.George Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is the Rent Control Court alone which has got the jurisdiction to vacate the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) invoking the powers under Section 11(2) (c). Ext.P5 has been passed by a Munsiff. There is considerable merit in the above submission of Sri.George Varghese though the same is technical. UNDER the statutory scheme, orders under 11(2) (c) can be passed only by Rent Control Courts.
(2.) BUT we notice that the author of Ext.P5 was himself the Rent Control Court also. It is seen that the learned District Judge became inclined to sustain Ext.P5 on that reason. After all, orders of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) are tentative orders which are always liable to be vacated on receiving deposits. We also are therefore, not inclined to set aside Ext.P5 or Ext.P7 on the reason that Ext.P5 is the order passed without jurisdiction. At the same time, we feel that in this particular case relief should not have been granted to the respondent without imposing conditions. Firstly, he moved a wrong court and thereby compelled the petitioner to challenge that order on valid legal grounds. Secondly, he, while seeking relief under Section 11(2)(c), would deposit only the rent which was demanded in the statutory notice under Section 11(2)(b). In fairness he could have tendered the rent that was payable by him till the date of filing of the application with statutory interest. We notice that as on date, he surrendered the building, a sum of Rs.2,520/- was payable by him towards rent. We also notice that towards statutory interest also amounts were due. We feel that respondent should have been made to pay cost also. Hence, even as we are sustaining Exts.P5 and P7 we are inclined to do so only on conditions. The result is that the Writ Petition will stand dismissed and Exts.P5 and P7 will stand sustained only subject to the following conditions:- The respondent pays to the petitioner either directly or through the petitioner's counsel in this Court a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the rent which was due in respect of the building till the date of surrender and interest due thereon and pays a further sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost. These payments shall be made within one month from today. If payments are not made, the Writ Petition will stand allowed and Exts.P5 and P7 will stand set aside. Forward a copy of this judgment to the court below.