KADAMKOTHU VALAPPIL SREEDHARAN Vs. KEEREERAKATH MUHAMMED KUNHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent who is the landlord applied for evicting the petitioner tenant under S.11(2)(b) of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (which we will call the Act for short) on the ground that he was in arrears of rent. On February 26, 1974 the petitioner deposited in the Rent Control Court the rent till the end of that month for payment to the respondent However on February 28, 1974 the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction on the ground that the amount deposited was insufficient as it did not cover the costs of the proceedings, adding a rider within S.11(2)(c) that the petitioner could get the order vacated by making up the deficit amount within one month. The petitioner did not do this within the time but made an application I. A. 192 (A)/74 for vacating the order only on June 1, 1974, supporting it with an affidavit explaining the circumstances which led to the delay. He also deposited Rs. 37 10 being the costs and the rent up to date The Rent Control Court dismissed the application in the view that it had no power to condone the delay and allow the application, as it was made only after the period of one month had expired This conclusion has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Court on substantially the same reasoning, dismissing the appeal and revision taken by the petitioner challenging the order of the Rent Control Court.

(2.) The revision filed by the petitioner has come before us pursuant to a reference made by a learned single Judge for deciding whether ......... ''in view of S.11(2)(b) and (c) and 23(1)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the Rent Control Court, which is a persona designata has all the powers of a civil court under S.148 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S.5 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of 'enlargement of time originally fixed or granted'. (See S.23(1) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act."

(3.) S.11(2)(b) lays down the circumstances under which the Rent Control Court can pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession on the ground of arrears of rent. The proviso that follows prescribes the conditions precedent to an application by the landlord for eviction. Clause (c) and S.23(1)(i) on whose interpretation the revision falls to be decided deserve to be quoted in full.