PRADEEP NAICK Vs. ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is Ext.P10 order. UNDER Ext.P10 order, the Accommodation Controller, considering the petition filed by the party respondent under Section 17(2) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, has directed the landlords to attend the necessary maintenance works under Section 17(2) of the Act. Ext.P10 concededly is not appealable under the provisions of the Act 2 of 1965. Ext.P10 is challenged on various grounds.

(2.) SMT.K.G.Bindu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that Section 17(2) of Act 2 of 1965 will enable the Accommodation Controller to direct the landlord to carry out periodical maintenance and repair only when he is satisfied that the landlord has neglected to carry out periodical maintenance and repairs in spite of the request in that regard by the tenant. In the present case, the necessity to carry out repairs to the building arose out of the act of misuser of the building. The learned counsel submitted that, invoking the section 11(4)(ii) of Act 2 of 1965, the landlord moved the Rent Control Court for evicting the the 2nd respondent. The Rent Control Court after enquiry found that the 2nd respondent had used the building in such a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction. The Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the second respondent. After re -appreciating the evidence, the Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and confirmed the order of eviction. The order of eviction was set aside by this court on a revision filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 20 and Ext.P3 is the order of this court. Ext.P3 order has not become final. Against Ext.P3, S.L.P. No.6613/2010 was filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered notice on the same and the second respondent has entered appearance before the Supreme Court in that case. That case stands posted before the Supreme Court on 16/8/2011. The endeavour of the 2nd respondent is to renovate the building extensively so as to make it appear before the Supreme Court that factually also the condition of the building is perfect. Allowing Ext.P10 be implemented , it will cause prejudice to the petitioner landlord in his case before the Supreme Court.

(3.) HAVING considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that Ext.P10 can be sustained and the writ petition can be disposed of issuing the following directions;