SAHADEVAN Vs. KESAVAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed an application for evicting the petitioner from a building under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. And the petitioner was directed to pay the arrears of rent and the rent accruing due pending the proceeding as contemplated by S.2(1)(1) of the Act. The petitioner failed to deposit the arrears; and consequently, as contemplated by sub-s.(3) of S 12, the Rent Control Court passed an order "directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building",

(2.) This order was sought to be executed by the respondent, when objection was taken by the petitioner that the order was not executable. The Objection has been overruled by both the lower courts, and hence the civil revision petition. A learned Judge of this Court considered the question to be of importance so as to be considered by a Division Bench and referred the matter to a Division Bench.

(3.) The first contention urged by the counsel of the petitioner is that, in S.14 of the Act, an order passed under S.12 is not mentioned as an order executable, the orders passed under S.11 or S.13 or S.19 or S.33 alone having been included there. (We have excluded the appellate and revisional orders) On a proper construction of the provisions of S.11 and S.12(3), it has to be said that an order passed under S.12(3) is really an order passed under S.11. Therefore, the absence of mention of S.12 in S.14 is of no consequence such mention is unnecessary. But the counsel has pointed out that in S.14, when it was amended by Act 7 of 1966, S.12 was also mentioned; and has argued that. when that was deleted under Act 8 of 1968, the intention of the legislature must have been that such an order, an order under S.12, should remain unexecutable. This could never have been the intention of the legislature which made a provision authorising (rather compelling) the Rent Control Court to pass an order in eviction: the intention of the legislature could never have been that such an order should not be executed, having provided for such an order; then, why was such an order provided for The position appears to be that the legislature, when it passed Act 8 of 1968, realised the mistake committed in Act 7 of 1966, which included S.12 also in S.14, that the inclusion of S.12 in S.14 was otiose, since an order passed under S.12 was really an order passed under S.11. (This will become clearer in another part of this judgment, where we discuss the purpose of a repealing Act the purpose is to remove inconsistencies also.) We may also reiterate that S.11 is mentioned in S.14, so that an order passed under S.11 is executable.