VACAKCHAN Vs. KURIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. Original tenant died in the year 1998 when R.C.P. was pending. Eviction was sought for under S.11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 2 of 1965. Eviction was ordered under S.11(4)(iii) of the Act, but under S.11(3) was declined. Matter was taken up before the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority passed the following order:

(2.) Counsel appearing for the tenant however submitted he may be given a chance to adduce further evidence. He is seriously attacking the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority for a remand. The condition stipulated for remand was that the tenant would deposit an amount of Rs. 12,500/- on or before 28.7.2001. Tenant submitted this condition is cumbersome and impossible of compliance. CMP 4234/01 was also filed by the tenant to receive certain documents. In the affidavit in support of the petition it was stated with much difficulty he could raise only Rs. 8,846/-. Therefore he sought for a remand on payment of Rs. 8,846/-. We are satisfied on the basis of the materials available that there are sufficient grounds for eviction under S.11(4)(iii) and consequently remand is unnecessary. All the same we may hasten to add when a condition is imposed for a remand, that condition must be reasonable, just and workable. Rent of the building admittedly is only Rs. 25/-.Therefore one year rent would come only upto Rs. 300/-. If the tenant has to remit an amount of Rs. 12,500/- for a remand by way of cost that would mean that he will have to deposit 42 years rent. We therefore have no hesitation to say that the conditional order passed by the Appellate Authority is unjustified, irrational and illegal. We have hasten to add when a condition is imposed for a remand that condition must be capable of compliance, must be reasonable, just and proper and must be justice oriented and shall not amount to a punishment. When the Court finds there is no merits in the case, court should decline relief and not expected to impose cumbersome and unworkable conditions. Since on facts we found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings on 11(4)(iii) we are inclined to dismiss the C.R.P.