KRISHNADASAN Vs. NADUKANDI MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the landlord aggrieved by the reversal of the order passed by the Rent Control Court, by the Appellate Authority. It is a case where the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction. The petition was filed under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short, 'the Act'). On the ground that the respondents have been absent, they have been set ex parte and after considering the materials furnished by the petitioner, an order of eviction was passed. The Appellate Authority was of the view that the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) of the Act insists that it is the duty of the landlord that a registered notice has to be sent to the tenant intimating the default and an application for eviction can be filed only if the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent together with interest at 6% per annum and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or of the refusal thereof and, accordingly, it was held that the tenants have a right to pay the rent, interest and cost of notice as provided under the said proviso on receiving notice. If any of the tenants comply the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, the landlord has no right to file an application for eviction under Section 11(2)(b). In fact, the finding of the Appellate Authority is about the insufficiency of the lawyer notice. It was contended by the landlord that a lawyer notice issued to one of the tenants was sufficient for the requirement under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) of the Act in the light of the decision of this Court in Abdurahiman Haji v. Balakrishnan, 2003 2 KerLT 690]. It was held by the Appellate Authority that the said dictum laid down in the above case would not apply in the facts of this case because A2 notice produced before the Appellate Authority was addressed only to the first appellant therein and he had refused to accept the notice in spite of intimation.

(2.) Heard Shri P.A. Harish learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jacob Abraham for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice was properly addressed and it was returned unclaimed. In the notice, it was specified that the same will be shown to the second respondent and, therefore, it is submitted that the same complies with the provisions of the Act.