FRANCIS Vs. MOOSAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 complained before the Accommodation Controller about the cutting of an amenity by the landlord. Though the Accommodation Controller did not see any merit in the complaint, the appellate authority - the District Collector-felt otherwise. The order was passed on 10-4-1986, directing the petitioner to restore the amenity within four weeks from that date. That date was over on 10 5-1986. Even when the time is reckoned from the date of service of the order on 13-4-1986. that time was over when the petitioner approached this Court on 29-5-1986. Be that as it may. the petition is devoid of substance also.

(2.) The amenity, according to the tenant, consists of a drain, which was in existence ever since the tenancy started in 1962. The tenancy was for a timber yard and a saw mill. Admittedly there was a drain, for letting out the water which would accumulate in the monsoon season. The landlord apparently thought of levelling up the drain, with a view to virtually suffocating the tenant with the accumulating water during the rainy season.

(3.) Whether drain would come within the term 'amenity' was considered by this Court way back in 1969 in Mariyakutty Umma v. Moosakutly Haji, 1969 KLT 919 . Gopalan Nambiar J. held in that case that such a drain constituted an amenity, and restored it when the landlord cut it off. The Accommodation Controller felt that as the drain was being used not only by the tenant but by others, the case was distinguishable. The appellate authority held: