CHANDRAN Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners challenge Exts. P2, P3 & P4 orders made by the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority in that order, allowing an application under S.11(12) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, called "the Act" hereinafter. Petitioners' predecessor (landlord) sought eviction of the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide need, of installing a grinder for purposes of his business. An order of eviction was granted by the Rent Controller, reversed by the Appellate Authority and restored by the Revisional Authority and the High Court. The landlord then filed E.P. 126/79 to execute the order. During its pendency, a compromise petition E.A. 460/79 (Ext. C2) was filed, praying that the execution petition may be dismissed, as the parties had settled their disputes out of court voluntarily, at the intervention of respectable mediators. The expression used in Ext. C2 was "Swamedhaya", (on my own/ on our own). Upon that, the execution petition was dismissed. The landlord came into possession on 4-12-1979 (date stated in Ext. C2).

(2.) Fourth respondent tenant states that after obtaining possession the landlord did not put the building to the use for which eviction was sought, namely installation of the grinder. Therefore, he filed a petition under S.11(12) of the Act for restoration of possession of the building. The authorities below upheld the contention of fourth respondent, and ordered restoration.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the landlord had occupied the premises by installing a grinder, though the grinder was not in working condition at the time, the petition under S.11(12) was filed. It is his further case that S.11(12) has no application to the facts of the case, since the landlord did not obtain possession "in pursuance of an order under sub-section (3)".