IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 252 of 2010(F)
1. K.K.SAIFI, S/O. KOCHU MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.A.JULIET, AGED 54 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
For Respondent :SRI.ABRAHAM LAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :07/01/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 252 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 7 day of January, 2010
th
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The tenant is the petitioner in this writ petition under
Article 227. He challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the Rent
Control Appellate Authority vacating the conditional stay which
had been granted in respect of execution proceedings. He also
challenges Ext.P5 order issued by the Execution Court directing
delivery on the reason that the Appellate Authority has vacated
the stay.
2. The Rent Control Court passed order of eviction on the
grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation.
The writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the Rent Control
Appellate Authority and sought for stay of execution. The
Appellate Authority granted stay subject to the condition that the
entire arrears of rent admitted shall be deposited within one
month of 13/11/2009. The petitioner became liable on the
terms of that order to pay or deposit a sum of Rs.51,000/- being
WPC.No.252/2010 2
admitted arrears. But he did not make deposit or payment.
Instead, he filed Ext.P3 application seeking enlargement of time
for making deposit by four weeks. The learned Appellate
Authority did not pass any order on Ext.P3. But, noticing that the
condition imposed on the stay petition had not been complied
with, what the Appellate Authority did was to pass Ext.P4 order
vacating the stay.
3. We have heard the submissions of Sri. S.P.Chaly,
learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri. Abraham Lal,
learned counsel for the respondent. We notice that against Ext.P5
order passed by the Executing Court, the petitioner has statutory
remedy by way of revision under Section 14 of the Act to the
District Court. However, since the writ petition challenges Ext.P4
also, we are inclined to entertain the same. The appeal, which
the writ petitioner has filed against the order of eviction passed
by the Rent Control Court, is a statutory appeal under Section 18
of Act 2 of 1965. We notice that eviction order has been passed
also on the substantial ground under sub section (3) of Section
11. The averments in the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in
support of Ext.P3 application has some appeal to us. We feel
WPC.No.252/2010 3
that having filed statutory appeal against Ext.P1 order of eviction,
the petitioner should be allowed to have the appeal decided on
merits by the Appellate Authority. At the same time, we are not
inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner unless it be on
stringent conditions.
4. The result of the above discussions is that the writ
petition will stand disposed of issuing the following directions.
i). Ext.P4 order passed by the Rent Control
Appellate Authority (Vth Additional District
Court,Ernakulam) and Ext.P5 of the Munsiff’s
Court will stand set aside on condition that the
writ petitioner pays a sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees
Seventy Five Thousand only) to the respondent
towards the arrears of rent claimed against him
without prejudice to his contention in the RCA.
on or before 1/2/2010.
ii). There will be a further condition that
the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-
(Rupees Three Thousand only) as costs to the
respondent through his counsel in this court
WPC.No.252/2010 4
within the same time limit.
Iii). If the two amounts mentioned above
are not paid, Exts.P4 and Ext.P5 will stand
confirmed and the Execution Court will be bound
to effect delivery immediately.
iv). Considering the above directions, we
direct the Execution Court to adjourn the delivery
ordered under Ext.P5 to 2/2/2010. Once the
Appellate Authority notices that the petitioner
has complied with the above directions on time,
that authority will ensure that the RCA itself is
disposed of early and at any rate within six
weeks from 2/2/2010. It is needless to
mention that under such a contingency, the
Execution proceedings will stand put off till the
final disposal of the RCA.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk