RADHA TEXTILES Vs. KORA EASO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of an order passed by the Rent Control Court under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and rent) Control Act, Act 2 of 1965, hereinafter called the Act, on an application filed by a tenant who had been evicted for the purpose of reconstruction of the building, to get restored part of the reconstructed structure. The said Court passed an order directing that the applicant be put in possession of an area of 250 square feet at the south western corner in the ground floor of the reconstructed building with the amenity of a corridor of 2 feet in width for giving access to the room from the northern K. K. Road. This re-allotment and restoration of possession was to be effected within a period of one month from the date of the order failing which the applicant was given the right to recover possession through Court in which case the tenant himself was allowed to construct a corridor of the nature specified above at his own cost and under the supervision of a Commissioner after obtaining necessary sanction from the municipality. The rent to be paid by the applicant was fixed at Rs. 437. 50 per mensem.

(2.) THE Appellate Authority on appeal by the landlord and the new tenant who had been inducted into the reconstructed building, while agreeing with the Rent Control Court that the tenant is entitled to be put back in possession, took the view that the tenant has to discharge the entire arrears of rent, interest and costs due from him on account of his earlier occupation of the building before its reconstruction (there was a decree for portion of such arrears ). While dismissing the two appeals, the Appellate authority modified the order of the Rent Controller in the following manner. THE tenant was to execute a Vadakachit in favour of the landlord agreeing to pay the rent determined by the Rent Controller. He was to pay one month's rent in advance. He is to pay the entire amount covered by the decree (for arrears of rent) as well as the rent and interest that accrued due subsequent to the passing of the decree till the date of his eviction which payment had to be made within thirty days from the date of the appellate order.

(3.) THE newly inducted tenant, in his revision petition, besides endorsing the pleas taken up by the landlord would submit that the conduct of the applicant in keeping silence for a considerable period of time when work of renovation was going on in the building at his instance for the conduct of his textile trade should reinforce the contention that the applicant has really waived his right of priority to occupy the building. It is a clear case of estoppel by conduct. He also raises the contention that the Rent control Court has no authority to pass an order of eviction of a tenant even though he might have been put in occupation in violation of the terms of the earlier order for eviction of the applicant-tenant. THE eviction has to be done only under the provisions of the Act. No grounds under the Act have been pleaded, made out or pointed out in the order. According to him, acting bonafide he got possession of the rooms. He is conducting a big business in textile trade which has a total investment of Rupees ten lakhs apart from the big amount he had incurred for renovation of the building to suit him. He had not been made aware of the applicant's intention to exercise his option which in the first instance he did not do in time and the applicant stood by silently watching the incurring of such a huge expenditure.