CHEMNAD ENTERPRISES Vs. SAHANA P V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenants of a commercial building have preferred this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act impugning the concurrent order passed by the authorities below under Section 12(3) of the Act. The said order was passed since the petitioners had admittedly failed to comply with the direction issued by the Rent Control Court to deposit the admitted arrears of rent within the stipulated time and also since they had failed to show cause to the contrary to make the deposit. Having heard learned counsel on either side, we do not deem it necessary to deal with the various contentions raised by them with regard to the opportunity to be given to the tenants to show cause if they fail to make the deposit. Several decisions have been cited before us, the latest of which being the one reported in Narayanan v. Vinod (2004 (3) KLT 955). Though learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the latest decision strikes a different note from the earlier decision of another Division Bench of this court in Xavier v. Francis Leonard Pappali (1975 KLT 542), we leave the said issued to be considered in some other appropriate case.

(2.) While conceding that there was default on the part of the petitioners in making the deposit or to show cause to the contrary, learned counsel submits that an amount of Rs.1,71,000/- had in fact been deposited before the Rent Control Court on 27/5/2005, as directed by this court. The lapse on the part of the petitioners had occurred due to reasons beyond their control. Learned counsel makes an impassioned plea that the impact of the impugned order will be disastrous and the petitioners may lose their opportunity to contest the case on its merit.

(3.) However, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords vehemently contends that there is no room for any leniency or sympathy since the very conduct of the petitioners had been one of indifference rather than inability to make the deposit. Admittedly the order to make the deposit was passed on September 30, 2003 and the petitioners comply with the order on or before November 14, 2003. The petition was taken up only on December 17, 2003. Till that date petitioners had not either deposited the amount or shown any cause. It is thus contended by the learned counsel that the authorities below were justified in passing the order directing the petitioner to put the landlord in possession of the building as provided under Section 12(3) of the Act.