JANAKEY Vs. CHELLAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner applied in the Subordinate Judge's court, Kottayam under S.15 of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act -- Act 11 of 1970 (shortly stated the Act) for a full settlement of his liabilities. His assets and liabilities were shown in the application 'A' schedule being the liabilities and 'B' schedule the assets. The only asset possessed by him is 5 cents of land with a building in the Kottayam town. This property was mortgaged to the counter petitioner and taken back under lease agreeing to pay a monthly rent. On the basis of the lease the counter petitioner filed B. R. C. 83/70 to evict the petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. Along with the application under S.15 of the Act, the petitioner had applied for stay of proceedings against him; but the learned Subordinate Judge did not issue a stay in respect of the B. R. C. proceedings. All the other proceedings pending against him were stayed. In respect of the arrears of rent and the B. R. C. proceedings taken for eviction, the contention put forward was that the Subordinate Judge has no jurisdiction to issue stay in respect of a matter pending before the Rent Controller. To quote the learned Judge's own words:

(2.) Eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is based on the arrears of rent and when arrears of rent is an item of liability falling under S.15 and 16 of the Act the eviction has to be postponed as provided in clause (5) of S.15. Clause (5) it is contended, can take in only trial of any suit or execution of any decree against the applicant or his properties, and since there is no decree against the applicant it cannot be said that there is any execution pending, which may be stayed. This is not a correct interpretation of clause (5) of S.15. The principle underlying clause (5) is that until the liabilities are settled, the applicant should not be harassed by any proceedings in execution so as to disturb or dislocate the state of his assets. Under the settlement, he will be given 1/4th of the assets not exceeding Rs. 6500/- in value free of encumbrances and in such allotment the homestead in which the debtor lives shall be allotted to his share. Before this stage is reached if he is evicted from the building and the building is made not available for final allotment to him, the very object of S.15 is defeated. Even otherwise when the arrears due to the respondent is treated as a liability under S.15, the ground for eviction is no longer there and in this view also the eviction is impossible and it has to be stayed. The order of the lower court is hence set aside and the CRP. is allowed. The stay will operate against the proposed eviction under the B.R.C. proceedings also.