NARAYANAN Vs. MURALIDHARA MARAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the tenant whose application for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash an order for his eviction has been dismissed by Govindan Nair, J.

(2.) The order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court shows that there was a specific order to deposit the arrears of rent accrued during the pendency of the proceedings as required under S.12(2) of the Act, 16 of 1959, and that since it was not deposited in full in spite of the courts order eviction was ordered under S.12 of the Act. On appeal the Subordinate Judge vacated the same and remanded the matter for fresh disposal; but the Additional District Judge reversed that order observing:

(3.) S.12(2) of Act XVI of 1959 provides for an order fixing a time to deposit the arrears of rent accrued during the proceedings for eviction and sub-s.(3) says that if that order is not complied with and no good cause is shown for that non compliance, the Rent Control Court has to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The orders of the Rent Control Court and of the revisional authority show that it was for non compliance of an order passed under S.12(2) that eviction was ordered in this case under S.12(3) of the Act. The order made under S.12(2) is not in proof in this proceeding; but it is conceded that such an order has been made by the Rent Control Court. When a court has passed an order directing a party before it to do a particular thing, in default of which a certain statutory consequence is to follow, if the party is to be relieved of the consequences of a non compliance of that order he has to make a specific motion therefor showing sufficient cause for his non compliance of the order and making the appropriate prayer therein. Otherwise the order would work itself out and the default to comply with it will bring the appointed consequences on the tenant; and that was what took place in this case.