DAVIS Vs. TALUK ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant, who filed an application before the Accommodation Controller (first respondent herein) under S.17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") praying for a direction to the landlord (second respondent herein) to do the repairs and maintenance of the tenanted building. The landlord opposed the prayer in the said application and contended that in view of the judgment of this Court in Mable v. Harris ( 1998 (2) KLT 599 ), the Accommodation Controller had no jurisdiction to pass an order under S.17(2) of the Act while the petition filed by the landlord for evicting the tenant was pending before the Rent Control Court. The Accommodation Controller, through Ext. P1 order dated 18.7.2001, disposed of the application holding that he had no jurisdiction to pass an order under S.17(2) of the Act in view of the pendency of the proceedings in the Rent Control Court under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the Accommodation Controller was not right in disposing of the application under S.17(2) of the Act without considering whether there was merit in the contention of the landlord that the building required reconstruction. In Mable v. Harris, the Rent Control Court had found that the tenanted building required reconstruction and hence this Court set aside the impugned order of the Accommodation Controller and directed him to keep the application under S.17(2) of the Act pending till the disposal of the appeal filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Court. In the present case, there is no finding by the Rent Control Court that the building requires reconstruction. The application filed by the landlord under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act for eviction on the ground of reconstruction is still pending. It is, therefore, contended that the decision in Mable v. Harris has no application to the facts of this case. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the mere pendency of a petition under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act will not oust the jurisdiction of the Accommodation Controller to entertain an application under S.17(2) of the Act. If the landlord contends that the building requires reconstruction and that a petition under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act is pending before the Rent Control Court, the Accommodation Controller is obliged to consider such contention on merits and examine whether the building requires reconstruction. If the Accommodation Controller comes to the conclusion that, prima facie, the building requires reconstruction, he should keep the application under S.17(2) of the Act pending and await the decision of the Rent Control Court on the petition filed by the landlord under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. If the Accommodation Controller comes to the conclusion that prima facie there is no merit in the contention of the landlord that the building requires reconstruction, the Accommodation Controller should consider the application of the tenant under S.17(2) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside with a direction to the Accommodation Controller to consider the application of the tenant under S.17(2) of the Act afresh and pass appropriate orders.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Ranjith Thampan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr. A.K. Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the second respondent.