BAVA CHERIYAN Vs. MAHADEVA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three decisions of this Court have been brought to our notice with a prater to consider their effect on the case before us, two of the decisions being Mohamed Khani Rowther v. Thaivana Ammal ( 1963 KLT 205 ) and Harihara Iyer v. First Additional District Judge's Court, Trivandrum ( 1969 KLT 974 ) by Single Judges and the third one being the Full Bench decision in Kurien v. Saramma Chacko ( 1964 KLT 1 ).

(2.) The petitioner was a tenant of a building under the respondent; and the respondent filed an application for evicting the tenant. An order in eviction was passed on the ground of arrears of rent; and the same was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority on 7th October 1968. The appellate authority, however, gave a direction that, if the arrears of rent were deposited within a month from the date of disposal of the appeal, the order of eviction would stand vacated. Amounts were deposited; but, on 2nd November 1968, before the time of one month allowed by the appellate authority expired, the petitioner filed a petition for extension of time already granted praying that, in case the amounts already deposited were found insufficient to meet the arrears, further time of two months might be allowed to make a further deposit. This was allowed by the appellate authority; but, on revision to the District Court, the District Judge disallowed the prayer and varied the order of the appellate authority relying on the latest of the three decisions mentioned above, the decision in Harihara Iyer's case by Eradi J. The question for us to consider is whether the reversal of the order of the appellate authority by the District Judge is right.

(3.) In the earliest of these decisions, viz., Mohamed Khani Rowther's case, the facts were these. An application for eviction under the Madras Rent Control Act was filed by the landlord and an order in eviction was passed. Appeal and revision followed, the revision having been dismissed on 12th June 1959. In the meantime, on 16th January 1959, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Ordinance (Ordinance 3 of 1959) came into force, which conferred on the tenant some additional benefits , one of them being the right to deposit the arrears of rent and to have the order of eviction vacated. In exercise of that right, the tenant filed an application for vacating the order of eviction depositing the arrears of rent; and the District Judge ultimately disallowed that prayer, which was confirmed in revision by the Single Judge.