Kerala High Court
S.Suresh Kumar vs Idicula Mathew on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN R.C.A 7 of 2019 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA
R.C.P 8/2012 OF MUNSIFF COURT ,PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER:
S.SURESH KUMAR
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. SIVARAMA PILLAI, PONNIES TEXTILES, PMC XXI/339
MAVINPARAMBIL BUILDINGS, OPP. ANURAG THEATRE,
PATHANAMTHITTA P.O, PIN 689 645, RESIDING AT USHASREE
HOUSE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MATTOM
VADAKKUM MURI, ALLEPPY DISTRICT 690 511
BY ADVS.
C.S.MANILAL
S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 IDICULA MATHEW
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. KUNJUKUNJU, MAVINPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIRALIPURAM,
MUNDUKOTTAKKAL P.O, VETTIPRAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689
649
2 REJI MATHEW
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. IDICULA MATHEW, MAVINPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIRALIPURAM,
MUNDUKOTTAKKAL P.O, VETTIPRAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689
649
BY ADVS.
S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM)
GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Anil.K.Narendran,J.
The petitioner is the respondent tenant in R.C.P.No.8 of
2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff),
Pathanamthitta, a petition filed by the respondents herein-
landlords under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction
of the tenant from the petition schedule building. The tenant
opposed the order of eviction by filing counter in the R.C.P. The
Rent Control Court by Ext.P1 order dated 23.10.2017 ordered
eviction of the tenant under Section 11(3) of the Act and the
tenant was directed to give vacant possession of the petition
schedule building to the landlords within a period of one month.
Challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control
Court, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 before the Rent
Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Court-I),
Pathanamthitta. In that appeal, the landlords filed I.A.No.854
of 2019, an application under Section 12 of the Act, seeking an
order directing the tenant to pay admitted arrears of rent and in
case of default, to stop the proceedings in the Rent Control
Appeal, under Section 12(3) of the Act. In that interlocutory
application, the Appellate Authority by the order dated
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2021
22.01.2021, directed the tenant to deposit an amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- being arrears of rent, within a period of one
month.
2. The tenant failed to comply with the condition
stipulated in that order. He filed an interlocutory application
seeking extension of time, which was allowed and time was
extended up to 20.03.2021. On 20.03.2021, when R.C.A.No.7 of
2019 came up for consideration before the Appellate Authority,
it was noticed that the tenant has not deposited Rs.2,50,000/-,
as directed in the order dated 22.01.2021, even within the
extended time granted by the Appellate Authority. Therefore,
the Appellate Authority by Ext.P5 order dated 20.03.2021,
which was one issued under Section 12(3) of the Act, directed
the tenant to put the landlords in possession of the petition
schedule building, within a period of 45 days from the date of
that order. In that order, it was made clear that, if the tenant
fails to put the landlords in possession of the petition schedule
building, the landlords are entitled to execute the order, in
accordance with law.
3. Seeking review of Ext.P5 order dated 20.03.2021 of
the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019, the
tenant filed R.P.No.1 of 2021, an application for review under
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2021
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read
with Section 23(1)(k) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent
Control) Act, 1965. That review petition is one dated
08.04.2021. After filing that review petition, the tenant
deposited a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-.
4. In the Review Petition, it is stated that pursuant to
the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated
24.09.2019 in O.P.(R.C)No.143 of 2019, the tenant had
deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereafter, a further sum
of Rs.2,50,000/- was deposited, at the time of filing of the
review petition, as stated in paragraph 4 of Ext.P6 Review
Petition. The grievance of the petitioner-tenant in this Original
Petition, which is one filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is
that during the pendency of R.P.No.1 of 2021, the Execution
Court, i.e., the Principal Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta, is
proceeding with E.P. No.69 of 2017 in R.C.P No.8 of 2012.
5. On 05.11.2021, when this Original Petition came up
for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission by
special messenger to the respondents, returnable by
09.11.2021.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2021
and also the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would
submit that seeking review of Ext.P5 order dated 20.03.2021 of
the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019, the
tenant filed R.P.No.1 of 2021, which is one dated 8.04.2021,
invoking the provisions under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code
read with Section 23(1)(k) of the Act. It is during the pendency
of that review petition, the execution court is proceeding with
E.P.No.69 of 2017 and the EP now stands posted to 11.11.2021
for reporting delivery of the petition schedule building.
Therefore time bound consideration of R.P.No.1 of 2021 is
highly essential.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents-
landlords would contend that R.P.No.1 of 2021, filed by the
tenant is not at all maintainable in law and the grounds raised
in that review petition falls outside the purview of the review
jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, read with
Section 23(1)(k) of the Act. The learned counsel for the
respondents would place reliance on the judgment of this Court
in K.P. Mohammed v. Madhavi Amma, [1963 KLT 688],
T.B.Mehanan v. Kanakaraja Pillai [1970 KLT 1024] and
M.Venugopalan v. Raphael [1974 KLT 640]. The learned
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2021
counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
J.Ramkumar v. Asok Jacob [judgment dated 22.10.2021 in
R.C.Rev.No.129 of 2021], in order to contend that any deposit
made by the tenant, after the passing of an order under Section
12(3), has no consequence at all and any such deposit will not
entitle the tenant to seek an order to vacate the order of
eviction passed under Section 12(3).
7. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that R.P.No.1 of
2021 filed by the petitioner-tenant, invoking the provisions
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code read with Section 23(1)
(k) of the Act, which is one dated 08.04.2021, is still pending
consideration before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Since
E.P.No.69 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2012 filed by the landlords-
decree holders is pending before the Munsiff Court,
Pathanamthitta, a time bound disposal of R.P.No.1 of 2021 by
the Appellate Authority is highly essential, taking note of the
legal and factual contentions raised by both sides, including the
question of maintainability of that R.P.
8. During the course of arguments, it is pointed out by
the learned counsel on both sides that R.P.No.1 of 2021 now
stands posted to 18.11.2021, before the Rent Control Appellate
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2021
Authority.
9. In such circumstances, this Original Petition is
disposed of by directing the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Pathanamthitta, to dispose of R.P.No.1 of 2021 in R.C.P.No.8 of
2012, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised
by both sides, including the question of maintainability, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three
weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this
judgment.
Till such orders are passed, the execution court, namely,
the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta, shall defer any coercive
steps against the tenant-judgment debtor in E.P.No.69 of 2017
in R.C.P.No.8 of 2012.
sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JUDGE
sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR
JUDGE
Nsd
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 110/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-10-2017 IN
R.C.P 8/2012 OF RENT CONTROL ,
PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED
BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL Appellate
Authority AS R.C.A 7 of 2019
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT DATED 24-09-2019 IN O.P(RC0 143 of
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION WITH AFFIDAVITIN
R.C.A NO. 7 of 2019 DATED 7-1-2010 BEFORE
THE RENT CONTROL Appellate Authority,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-03-2021 IN
RENT CONTROL APPEAL NO. 7 of 2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL Appellate
Authority-1, (ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-1)
PATHANAMTHITTA
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETTION R.P1/2021
IN R.C.A 7 of 2019 BEFORE THE ADDL.
DISTRICT COURT-1, (RENT CONTROL Appellate
Authority) PATHANAMTHITTA.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A 1/2021 IN R.P
(REVIEW) NO. 1/2021 IN R.C.A NO. 7 of 2019
BEFORE RENT CONTROL Appellate Authority-
1(ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-1) PATHANAMTHITTA,
FILED BY THE LANLORD CLAIMING FURTHER
ARREARS OF RS. 1,75,000/-
Exhibit P8
TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
IN E. COURTS WEBSITE
//true copy//
PA to Judge
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2021
