K.C. BABU Vs. SOPHIYAMMA CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is preferred against Ext.P3 order passed by the Court of the Rent Controller in E.P No.65/2013 in R.C.P No.11/2009 as well as Ext.P4 order in RC(RP) No.1/2014 of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kottayam dated 8.8.2017. The petitioner herein was the respondent in R.C.P No.11/2009 before the Court of the Rent Controller, Changanacherry filed for eviction under Section 11(8) and Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act'). It is submitted that the Rent Control Court had found that the landlord was not entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(8). However, eviction was ordered on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2). It is submitted that the order of the Rent Controller was dated 30.10.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner in the original petition filed I.A No.1721 of 2010 to deposit the arrears of rent on 28.11.2010. It is stated that an amount of Rs.62,060/- with interest had been deposited as arrears of rent from April 2007 to August 2009 and the balance of the arrears of Rs.23,580/- covering the rent till August 2010 was also paid.

(2.) Thereafter, the landlord filed E.P No.65/2013 before the Execution Court. The tenant filed E.A contending that the arrears had already been deposited and that the E.P is not maintainable. By Ext.P3 order, the Execution Court dismissed the E.A No.59/2014 filed on the ground that there was no order vacating the order in RCP within the time period. Though the E.P had been filed by the landlord seeking arrears of rent for later periods as well, the Execution Court had only directed the handing over of vacant possession of the property to decree holder. The case was posted for report on 30.7.2014. The petitioner took up the matter by filing RC(RP) No.1/2014 before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kottayam. Relying on the arguments raised and the decisions of this Court, the District Court held that though an amount of Rs.90,300/- was remitted by the petitioner, a statement was filed by the counter petitioner/landlord on 19.7.2014 stating that an amount of Rs.7,242/- is still due towards arrears of rent. It is stated that the petitioner had, pursuant to an order dated 23.7.2014, sought time for removing his belongings from the petition schedule building. The District Court held that since Section 14 of the Act only enables the Munsiff's Court to execute the order of eviction, and since it is not in dispute that the formal order vacating the order under Section 11(2)(b) had not been passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, the Execution Court had no option but to reject the claim raised by the petitioner and to order delivery of the property.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.