FRAN XCIS PAUL Vs. FAKIR UMMERKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant of the non residential building No. C. 57 in Ward VII of the Kottayam Municipality. He asks the Court:- (a) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order for eviction passed by the District Collector, dated 27.11.1950 in R.C. 22/50 and (b) to give such further and other directions as the circumstances of the case require. There are only two respondents to this petition of whom the first is the landlord and the second the District Collector, Kottayam.

(2.) The petitioner took the building on lease for a period of six months ending 24.8.1124 on a rent of Rs. 30/- per month. Having agreed to enhance the rent to Rs. 125/- per month he held over and on 10.10.1124 executed a rent deed for a period of 12 months from the date of expiry of the previous lease till 24.8.1125. The rent of the last month ending 24.8.1125 was then paid in advance on a receipt passed by the landlord and it was stipulated that the rent for each of the remaining 11 months would be paid on the 24th of every month commencing from that month. Payments for the first three months were regular. On 10.4.1125 the petitioner applied before the Rent Controller for fixing fair rent under the provisions of the Travancore Building Rent Control Order, 1122 and requested that the excess rent collected from him may be directed to be refunded by the landlord or that he may be permitted to adjust it towards the rent due from 24.3.1125. On 25.6.1125 the landlord in his turn applied for eviction on the ground that the tenant had defaulted payment of rent. He mentioned in his application the fact that Rs. 250/- had been paid by the tenant towards arrears of rent in Vrischigom 1125 and that even if the advance payment made on the date of the rent deed be adjusted, the tenant would be in arrears from 24.3.1125 with the result that on 10.4.1125 when the tenant applied for fixing the fair rent, he would have been a defaulter as regards the rent payable on 24.3.1125 which would have remained unpaid for more than 15 days after the due date. On 7.8.1950 the Rent Controller passed orders on both the petitions. He allowed the petition of the tenant and fixed Rs. 24.12.0 as the fair rent. He also allowed the petition of the landlord for eviction on the ground that the tenant was a defaulter. The prohibition against eviction during the contractual period of tenancy contained in the Travancore Cochin Buildings Lease and Rent Control Order, 1950 which came into force on 17th August 1950 did not exist in the Travancore Building Rent Control Order, 1122 under which the applications were made and orders passed. Both the parties felt aggrieved by these orders and they filed appeals before the District Collector, Kottayam who, on 27.11.1950, dismissed both the appeals. The petitioner applied to the Government of Travancore - Cochin for revising the order of the Collector confirming that of the Rent Controller allowing the landlords prayer for eviction. The Government by order dated 31.3.1951 confirmed the order sought to be revised. On presentation of this petition in this court the petitioner obtained an order of interim stay on 28.4.51.

(3.) The Government who passed the last and final order for eviction are not on record here nor is their order sought to be quashed by this court.