VINOD KUMAR Vs. MOHAMMED RASHEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I find no ground to entertain this Original Petition. Petitioner is the Managing Director of a firm. The landlord leased out a building to the firm, and on the rent being in arrears, the landlord filed petition for eviction. That was allowed. Thereafter, no revision was filed against the decision of the Rent Control Court. The Managing Partner appeared several times before the Rent Control Court, but no written statement was filed. After the decree has become final, ordering eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent, execution petition was filed. Before the execution Court it is argued that the decree is a nullity in the sense that the partners of the firm have not been impleaded, but only the firm has been made a party. The Execution Court found that it is only an irregularity and that the order is not a nullity. It was also observed that the execution Court cannot ignore the decree and cannot go behind the decree. Therefore, delivery was ordered on 29-10-1990. Against that order, a Revision was filed. The Revisional Authority also gave several opportunities to deposit the arrears of rent. The revisional authority was also prepared to permit the petitioner to deposit the arrears and on that ground to vacate the order of eviction. But the petitioner was not prepared to pay the arrears of rent. Hence, the Revisional Authority dismissed the revision filed against the order passed in execution. It is those orders, viz. Exts. P2 and P3, that is being challenged in this petition.

(2.) Admittedly, the lease is in favour of the firm. The eviction petition is filed under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. As per S.11(2)(b), if the Rent Control Court after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable it shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, and if it is not satisfied, it shall make an order rejecting of the application thereof by him. It is also provided that the order of the Rent Control Court directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building shall not be executed before the expiry of one month from the date of such order or such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its discretion allow, and if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings within the said period of one month or such further period, as the case may be, it shall vacate that order.

(3.) In the present case, admittedly, the landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The word 'tenant' has been defined in S.2(6) to mean any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the heir or heirs of a deceased tenant, and a person continuing in possession after termination of the tenancy in his favour. Admittedly, rent is payable by the firm. The question is whether the firm is a person. There is no definition for the word 'person' in the Act. But the term' person is defined in S.2(26) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125, which says that 'person' shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The firm is an association or body of individuals, and hence, it will satisfy the definition of person. Therefore, going by the statute, the orders impugned in this Original Petition cannot be found fault with.