ITTA RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. KESAVAN VASUDEVAN & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FAILURE on the part of the respondents (landlord) to occupy within the stipulated period, the building in dispute which was taken delivery of in pursuance of an order under Section 11 [3] of the Kerala Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, for short the Rent Control Act, has resulted in the petitioner filing an application under Section 11 [12] for an order directing that he shall be restored to possession of the building. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition. The Appellate Authority, however, set aside the order accepting the arguments of the respondents that the petition was filed out of time The District Judge before whom the said order was challenged, however, upheld the order of the Appellate Authority. It is against the said order, this revision is filed. The only question that arises for consideration in the revision is whether the tenant who was evicted from the building in pursuance of an order under Section 11(3) can maintain a petition for restoration of possession under Section 11(12) after the expiry of the period of one month stipulated in sub -section (13) thereof. The answer depends upon the construction of sub -sections (12) and (13) of Section 11 of the Rent Control Act.

(2.) SUB -section (12) of Section 11 reads:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner however submits that subsection (13) of Section 11 has no application to the case because the rent of the building involved in the case admittedly does not exceed Rs. 15/ - per month and therefore sub -section (13) of Section 11 will not apply to the building. It has been so declared by the proviso appended to this sub -section: