GRACKUTTY MUTHUKUTTY Vs. KESHAVAN VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT herein is a tenant occupying a shop room belonging to the revision-petitioner. Revision-petitioner originally filed RCP 33 of 1975 before the Rent Control Court, Kayamkulam seeking eviction of the tenant from the premises on the ground that the premises is needed for reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. The case was transferred to the file of the Rent Control Court, Chengannur because of personal embarrassment of the Rent Controller, Kayamkulam. It was re-numbered as RCP 15 of 1977. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. However, the Appellate Authority, in an appeal filed by the landlord, reversed the decision and allowed eviction on the ground sought for. This order was confirmed by the District Court in revision and by this Court in a second revision, the order of this Court having been passed on 1.4.1980. This Court granted two months' time to the tenant to vacate the premises and directed the landlord to reconstruct the building within one year from the date of surrender. This Court also held that the tenant has a first option to take a room on fair rent. The premises was surrendered on 2.6.1980. It is was not reconstructed within the period of one year allowed by this Court. In January, 1981, the tenant filed IA 764 of 1981 before the Rent Controller, Kayamkulam under the two provisos to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act praying that penalty may be levied on and landlord for wilful failure to comply with the order of reconstruction directed the landlord to pay to the tenant the excess rent which the tenant has been constrained to pay for an alternative premises taken by him on rent. The Rent Controller declined to impose the fine under the first proviso, but passed an order directing the landlord to pay the cess rent which the tenant has been paying under the second proviso, and determined the excess rent at Rs. 210/- per month. The landlord challenged this order before the Appellate Authority, who, however, dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision-petitioner has urged before us only two contentions firstly that the Rent Controller, Kayamkulam has no jurisdiction to pass an order of the nature passed by him and secondly that the second proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act is inapplicable to the facts of the case.

(3.) THE second contention is that the second proviso would apply only where after the passing of eviction order the Rent Controller has issued a fresh direction is violated by the landlord and since in this case the Rent Control Court has not issued any direction after the passing of the eviction order the operation of the second proviso cannot be attracted.