K. KANAKAMMA Vs. GOVINDA PILLAI SIVASANKHARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in an application filed under section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short ('the Act') has filed this revision petition. The respondent was a tenant of a building belonging to him. An order of eviction was passed by the Rent Control Court Trivandrum on 19-2-1974 on the ground that the respondent made default of payment of rent and also on the ground that the building was required by the petitioner for the purpose of reconstruction. The respondent claimed Kuldikidappu right in respect of the building. The matter was referred the Land Tribunal who held that the building was not a hut. An order of eviction was passed in due course which was confirmed in appeal. A revision petition filed under Sec. 20 of the Act before the District Court,the District Court confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate authority. The respondent preferred C.R.P. 1418 of 1974 before this Court challenging the finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate authority and the District Court regarding her alleged Kuldikidappu right. This Court dismissed the revision petition but allowed time to vacate the building. After the disposal of the revision petition, the respondent filed I-A. 13261 of 1974 before the Rent Control Court under section 11(2)(c) of the buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act for vacating the order of eviction on deposit of the arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. The appellate authority confirmed the order. In a revision petition filed against the order under section 20 of the Act, District Court allowed the petition and directed the tenant to deposit the arrears due till the date of the order along with the costs incurred by the landlord within one month from that date. This order is challenged before this court.

(2.) The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that section 11(2)(c) is not applicable to the order of the High Court exercising powers of revision and, therefore, unless the deposit was made within the time prescribed by the Rent Control Court or within such extended period, the order of eviction is liable to be executed. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the period of one month referred to in section 11(2)(c) is available for deposit of arrears when the final order passed is that of the High Court in revision. No ruling of this Court interpreting section 11(2(c) has been pointed out.

(3.) Sec. 11(2)(c) reads:-