PAYYANAT DEVAKI Vs. OVINTAKATH KARUKKANDIYIL FOUSIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant judgment debtor in a proceeding for execution of eviction order passed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act finally confirmed by this Court under Ext. P1, is the petitioner in this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. He challenges the order of the execution court dated 25-3-2011, which is extracted at page No. 4 of the O.P. as follows :

(2.) Under Ext.P1 we confirmed the order and directed the execution court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till such time as PW-2 appears before that court and swears to an affidavit stating that he will be commencing his proposed business in the petition schedule building within a period of one month of his getting actual possession. According to Advocate Gopakumar appearing for the petitioner, Ext.P3 affidavit filed by PW-2 before the execution court does not conform to the requirements under Ext.P1. We cannot agree. We find that Ext. P-3 perfectly conforms to the requirements of Ext. P-1. We don't find any warrant for invoking visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 to interfere with the order passed by the execution court on 25-3-2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner would now appeal for grant of time till the civil court reopens after midsummer holidays for the petitioner to vacate the premises. We cannot agree to the above request in the absence of the landlord decree holder. We dismiss the O.P. However, we direct the execution court to keep in abeyance the order of delivery till 8-4-2011. The execution court will, on 5-4-2011 before issuing delivery warrant to the amin, explore the possibility of a settlement between the parties under which the petitioner pays higher rent to the landlord and the landlord allows him to continue in the building till the court re-opens after midsummer holidays.