MANOHARAN Vs. NARAYANA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether the Rent Control Court after having granted time more than what was statutorily fixed under S.11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 could still grant further period in exercise of its discretion under S.11(2)(c).

(2.) A Bench of this court Rabi Umma v. Mukundan ( 1992 (1) KLT 700 ) held that the wording of the sub clause especially the words "such further period" would permit extension of the period fixed in the original order by a subsequent order passed not only before the expiry of the original period but also after its expiry. In Jeboy v. Subramonian ( 1990 (2) KLT 167 ) another Bench of this court held that if extension of time is granted once, the court becomes functus officio and thereafter it is not open to the Rent Control Court to grant further extension of time.

(3.) Short facts which are necessary for disposal of this case are as follows: Landlord is the owner of building bearing door No. 39/651 with all additions and temporary sheds attached to the same. Eviction was sought for by the landlord under S.11(2)(b) for arrears of rent. Tenant filed objections. However, when the matter came up for hearing both sides submitted that actual arrears of rent payable by the tenant would come to Rs. 8,407/- as on 31.10.1989 and order of eviction was passed by the Rent Control Court. Rent Control Court also recorded the statement and passed an order under S.11(2)(b) and the order passed under S.11(2)(b) was subject to the order passed under S.11(2)(c) of the Act.