POCKER Vs. RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 is Ext.P6 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Pattambi holding that the Execution Petition seeking recovery of arrears of rent is not maintainable.

(2.) Evidently,EP. No. 1/2010 was filed before the learned Munsiff in R.C.P. No. l9/1997 under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965. It is clear to us that orders, which are executable by the Principal Munsiff of the Station by virtue of Section 14, are eviction orders under Section 11, summary orders of eviction under Section 12, orders passed by the Accommodation Controller under Section 13, orders awarding cost under Section 19, orders directing restoration of/reinduction into possession under Section 33, appellate orders under Section 18 and revisional orders under Section 20. There is no scope for passing money decree for recovery of arrears of rent under the above provisions of Act 2 of 1965. The execution petition seeking recovery of arrears of rent per se will not be maintainable.

(3.) Coming to the facts of the present case, it is conceded that no decree or order for recovery of arrears was passed in favour of the writ petitioner/landlord. It was by Ext.P3 order in R.C.R. No. 31/2003 that this Court confirmed the order of eviction passed by the statutory authorities under the Rent Control Act viz. the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Under that order, this Court, after confirming the order of eviction, became inclined to grant time to the tenant to vacate the premises till 31.3.2010 subject to the condition that an affidavit shall be filed and the further condition that the tenant shall pay rent up to the date within one month and also occupational charges till the date he surrenders.