CHACKO NINAN Vs. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant is the appellant. He is a lessee of the suit property and there is a decree in favour of the plaintiff lessor for recovery of possession of the property on payment of the amount fixed as the value of the improvements effected by the defendant. The decree has also allowed recovery of future pattom at the rate of Rs. 15/- chs. 11 per year. Such pattom was payable on 18th of Vrischigom every year. The final decree was passed on 15th December 1950. During the suit and even after decree the defendant has not paid or deposited any pattom. On 15.2.1951 the decree holder applied for recovery of possession of the property on deposit of the balance amount due to the defendant, after setting off the arrears out of the value of improvements. The defendant objected and contended that in view of Act VIII of 1950 he is not liable to be evicted from the holding. This is a special statute conferring a temporary relief on lessees in possession of the property. The provisions of this statute have necessarily to be strictly construed and applied. Under S. 4 of the Act execution of decree for eviction has been stayed subject to certain conditions. The proviso to the section says that the benefit of such stay will not be available to a tenant who has failed to pay the rent of the holding which has accrued due after the commencement of the Act. The Act came into force on 5th April 1950. Subsequent to that Act and before the date of the execution, one instalment of pattom had fallen due and the defendant defaulted to pay or deposit the same. Thus he has become a defaulter as contemplated by the proviso to S.4. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that there was still a balance amount by way of value of improvements payable to him by the plaintiff. But the availability of such an amount in the hands of the plaintiff will not amount to payment or deposit of pattom by the defendant. That amount may be available to the decree holder for the purpose of set off against arrears of pattom whenever recovery of possession of the property is sought for after such set off. Until such set off is made the defendant will be defaulter. When he became a defaulter he forfeited the benefit of the stay allowed by S. 4 of the Act, and became liable to be evicted as per the terms of the decree. The lower Courts order to that effect has therefore to be upheld. In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs.