KUNHALEEMA Vs. ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a building in Thalikkavu, Cannanore. The first floor of the building was rented out to the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. On 23-5-1979 the petitioner issued Ext. P1 notice to the second respondent stating that she had damaged the building by storing water and by splitting fire-wood on the floor. Since she felt that it was not possible to restore the building to its original condition she claimed recovery of possession of the building with arrears of rent. The second respondent issued Ext. P2 reply notice denying that it was due to her neglect or action that damage was caused to the building. She had been permitted to use a portion of the upstair as "kottathalam" and as such she was using the same for the purpose. According to her, the petitioner was not in the habit of effecting repairs to the building in spite of demands by her. She also denied that she had kept rent in arrears. An amount of Rs. 360/- was sent by Money Order dated 7-11-1978, which was received by the petitioner on 13-11-1978. Another Money Order for Rs 60/- was sent on 8-5-1979 being the rent for the months from December to May 1979, both inclusive. But the petitioner refused to accept the money without assigning any reason She denied her liability to be evicted. Thereafter, on 14-5-1979 the second respondent filed petitions before the District Collector and the Tahsildar for getting the building repaired. The Tahsildar, who is also the Accommodation Controller, returned the petition as it was unstamped, and it was not preceded by a notice to the petitioner. The second respondent re-presented the petition on 11-6-1979. Ext. P4 is a copy of that petition. Ext. P3 is a notice issued to the petitioner to the effect that the petition stood posted to 20-6-1979. On 7-7-1979 the petitioner filed Ext. PS counter denying the allegations in the petition and stating that the damage caused was due to the second respondent's negligence and that it was beyond repair. The petitioner contended that in the absence of a notice as contemplated in the Act, the claim for getting the repairs done was unsustainable.

(2.) In the meanwhile on 20-6-1979 the Accommodation Controller visited the building and found that there were two huge openings developed on the floor, through which, according to the Officer, there was every possibility of the inmates of the house falling down to the ground-floor. According to him, the condition of the building was dangerous and warranted immediate interference on humanitarian grounds. The second respondent was given permission on the spot to carry out immediate repairs to avoid danger to the inmates of the house. After the counter was filed, on 18-7-1979 the petitioner moved Ext. P6 petition stating that the second respondent had replaced the damaged beams and that she had no authority to carry out any work without her consent or an order from the competent authority. She prayed that the work should be inspected by the Accommodation Controller. The Accommodation Controller inspected the property again on 21-7-1979 in the presence of the advocate for the petitioner. The second respondent was also present. It was found that two beams and tea wooden planks had been replaced and the kitchen room had been replastered. On 30th July, 1979 the Accommodation Controller passed Ext. P7 order allowing the second respondent's petition and overruling the contention of the petitioner that it was due to the negligent use by the second respondent that the damage was caused to the building. The Accommodation Controller directed that the expenses incurred for the replacement of the beams and planks and the charges for replastering the floor of the kitchen room should be deducted with interest at six per cent per annum from the rent due from the second respondent to the petitioner. It was also directed that the second respondent should render necessary accounts for the expenses incurred by her to the satisfaction of the Accommodation Controller.

(3.) The present petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext. P7 order of the first respondent and for quashing the same, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the first respondent to consider Exts. P5 and P6 statements on the merits, and, also to direct the first respondent to abstain from implementing Ext. P7 order.