MOHAMMED KANNU ABDUL RASHEED Vs. NAZARUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the landlord challenges the order passed by the District Court in an R.C.R.P. filed by the tenants against the order passed by the execution court in a rent control matter rejecting the tenant's prayer for re-induction to the reconstructed building. The facts: - Claiming eviction of the tenanted premises, the petitioner moved the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram, under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against respondents 1 and 3, who are the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. The Rent Control Court granted eviction, under S. 11(2)(b) only. Appeals by the petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 3 were considered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The petitioner was successful in the R.C.A. The verdict ultimately came up for consideration before this Court in C.R.P. No. 1927/1992. this Court ordered eviction under both grounds and granted one month time to respondents 1 and 3 to deposit the arrears of rent. After re-construction of the building, respondents 1 and 3 filed execution petition claiming that they are entitled to get allotment of the newly constructed building pursuant to the order passed under S. 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The petitioner opposed the application contending that as the arrears of rent was not deposited by respondents 1 and 3 within time and the order under S. 11(2)(b) has not been vacated, the tenant is not entitled to exercise the above option. Accepting the contentions of the petitioner, the executing court dismissed the execution petition. Respondents 1 and 3 challenged the order by filing R.C.R.P. before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which was allowed accepting the contentions of respondents 1 and 3. The said order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) We have heard Mr. T. Krishnanunni, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. V. Suresh, the Learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 3. We have also perused the impugned order as well as the order passed by the execution court.

(3.) The questions that arise for consideration in this petition are the following: