MABLE Vs. HARIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) In this Original Petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the order Ext. P3 passed by the Accommodation Controller under S. 17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is seen that the landlords, the petitioners herein had filed an application for eviction under S. 11(4)(i v) of the Act on the ground that the building is in such a condition that it requires reconstruction. It is submitted by counsel for the tenant that an earlier application filed under S. 11(3) of the Act was dismissed. In my view, the dismissal of application under S. 11(5) of the Act has no relevance to the question involved. The finding of the Rent Control Court in the petition for eviction is that the building is in such a condition that it needs reconstruction and the landlords require it for reconstruction. In the light of this finding, it is doubtful whether the Accommodation Controller had jurisdiction to pass an order holding that the building requires repairs to be effected by the landlord and to pass an order under S. 17(2) of the Act. In view of the pendency of the proceedings in the Rent Control Court, the order Ext. P3 cannot be sustained.

(3.) Learned counsel for the tenant submits that the tenants has filed an appeal against the order for eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and in that appeal, the actual eviction has been stayed. In view of this, I think that the proper order to make is to direct the Accommodation Controller to keep the petition filed by the tenants pending until the proceedings initiated under S. 11(4)(iv) of the Act are terminated. I am therefore, satisfied that the order Ext. P3 requires to be set aside.