K SULAIMAN SAHIB Vs. S MOHAMMED MOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in I.A. No. 1832/1993, who is the respondent / landlord in R.C.A. 2/1993 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (1st Addl. District Judge), Palakkad, is the revision petitioner. The tenant filed the appeal, R.C.A. 2/1993, challenging the dismissal of the petition, I.A. 2600/1992, filed by him praying to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. As the tenant had not deposited the admitted arrears of rent, amounting to Rs. 32,450/-, the landlord prayed to stop the appeal proceedings and to make an order of eviction against the tenant, under S.12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, (in short the Act). The dismissal of the same is challenged in this revision.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, required for the disposal of this revision, are that the landlord filed R.C.P. 8/1986 before the Rent Control Court, Palakkad for evicting the tenant under S.11(2) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction after setting the tenant ex parte. I.A. 2600/1992 was filed under R.13(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules, (in short the rules), to set aside the ex parte order passed against him. The Rent Controller dismissed the same. R.C.A. 2/1993 was filed by the tenant, challenging the said dismissal. In that appeal the landlord filed I.A. 1832 of 1993 for a direction under S.12(3) of the Act. The Appellate authority held that the tenant having filed the I.A. before the Rent Controller under R.13(3) of the Rules and not under S.11 of the Act, the Court cannot give a direction to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent, and therefore, the petition is unsustainable.

(3.) The question for consideration is whether a direction under S.12(3) of the Act could be given by the Rent Controller or the Appellant Authority during the pendency of proceedings arising under R.13(3) of the Rules.