P. ANIL Vs. DEVAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE additional revision petitioners (impleaded on the death of the tenant, the revision petitioner) are the legal representatives of the tenant who was evicted from the shop building on 21-11-1978 in execution of the ex parte order in R.C.P. 103 of 1978 before the Rent Controller, Cannanore.

(2.) FACTS relevant and requisite to decide the dispute lie in a narrow compass. The landlady, the first respondent filed R.C.P. 103 of 1978 and obtained an ex parte order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. This ex parte order was passed on 11-8-1978. This order had given the petitioner one months' time to deposit the arrears of rent. On his coming to know of the ex parte order, the tenant filed I. A. 2225/1978 to set aside that order. This application was allowed on condition that the tenant should deposit the arrears of rent on or before 25-9-1978. The tenant failed to comply with that order and deposit the arrears of rent within the stipulated period although he subsequently deposited the entire arrears of rent on 27-9-1978. He thereafter filed two petitions. I. A. 2473/78 for extension of time by two weeks to comply with the directions contained in the order in I. A. 2225/1978 and / I. A. 2573/78 under S.23(1)(i) of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for short, The Rent Control Act, to enlarge the time for deposit of arrears of rent as per the ex parte order, by three months. The Rent Controller dismissed both petitions, I. A. 2473/78 and 2573/78 and those orders were confirmed in appeal. (See the judgments in R.C.A. 135 and 136 of 1978; R.C.A. 135 against the order in I. A. 2573/78 and R C.A. 136 against the order in I. A. 2473/78). The tenant thereupon filed two revisions before the District Court, Tellicherry as R.C.R.P. 58/80 challenging the order of the appellate court dismissing R.C.A. 136/78 against the order in T A. 2473/78 and R.C.R.P. 59/80 against the order dismissing the appeal, R.C.A. 135/78 challenging the order in I. A. 2573/78 refusing to enlarge the time. The District Court dismissed R.C.R.P 58/80 on the ground that the time fixed in the order allowing the petition to set aside the ex parte order namely I. A. 2225/78 had worked itself out. The District Court however, allowed R.C.R.P. 59/80. That means the prayer in I. A. 2573/78 to enlarge the time by three months for deposit of the arrears of rent while passing the ex parte order, was granted.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of this court, the landlady filed S.L.P 1553/1985 before the Supreme Court which however was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 4-4-1988. The order of this court in the revision thus has become final.