VELAYUDHAN Vs. ADDL DIST COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Petitions are under Art.226 read with Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Both are connected and the question to be decided is one and the same, and so both the original petitions were head together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The landlord of three shop buildings possessed by three different tenants, sought eviction of all the buildings (shop rooms) on the grounds falling under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitions before the Rent Control Court, Varkala were R.C.OPs. 32, 33 and 34 of 1975. The Rent Control Court allowed those petitions. There were appeals before the Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Attingal as B.R.C. Appeals 5, 6 &7 of 1977. They were disposed of by a common judgment, allowing eviction under S.11(2)(b) alone. There was revision before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram and further revision before this court and an original petition under Art.227 of the Constitution. The final order was one granting eviction under S.11(2)(b) of the Act. That order when put into execution before the Munsiff's Court, was objected to on the ground that there is no executable order since the order of eviction stood vacated by the order working out itself, since it was only a conditional order. The operative portion of the order as extracted in the objections before the execution court, reads as follows:-

(3.) In the execution court, the judgment debtors (Petitioners) by Ext. P2 sought permission to adduce evidence in support of their contention that the entire arrears of rent, interest etc. have been discharged, and the order under S.11(2)(b) stood vacated. The execution court allowed that application and Ext P3 is a copy of that order. That order was challenged in revision in R,C.R.P.No.8/92 and 9/92 before the Revisional Authority and the Revisional Authority passed Ext. P4 order. As per that order, the order of the Munsiff's Court was set aside and it was held that the tenant was not entitled to adduce evidence before the execution court to prove that the rent has been discharged. It was further directed that the execution court will consider whether the order of eviction under S.11(2)(b) was substituted or whether it stood vacated under S.11(2)(c) of the Act It is that order now under challenge in these Original Petitions, and the prayers are: