IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 CRP.No. 131 of 2011() --------------------- OS.136/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RAVEENDRAN, S/O.BHARATHAN, DAYANA HOUSE, PUTHENCHANTHA, VETTOR DESOM, VAKRKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUDHA, D/O.NANU, AGED 51 YEARS, FLAT NO.424, 3RD FLOOR, BLOCK-7, E.M.S.NAGAR, PATTOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695024. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 132 OF 2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------- C.R.P.Nos. 131 of 2011 and 132 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner assails in these Original Petitions the order dated 05.03.2011 whereby the court below decided to proceed with the execution in E.P.No. 7/2009 and E.P.No.6/2009. 2 Suffice to say that two suits were initiated against the petitioner and they were decreed and the matter ultimately came up to this court. This Court by judgment in RSA 1122/2010 granted six months time to vacate the shop room on condition that the appellant shall file an affidavit, undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the respective buildings within the above period and also tender all dues payable to the respondent till date of surrender, which has been fixed by the court below. The appellant has to file affidavit before the court below within a period of three weeks. 3. According to the respondent when the petitioner failed to comply with the directions in the respective execution petitions, the impugned orders have been passed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in fact the mesne profit to be determined as directed to this Court has not been done. Therefore, he was not able to pay the amount. C.R.P.Nos. 131 of 2011 and 132 of 2011 2 5. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that it is not correct to say that the quantum of mesne profit has not been determined. Referring to the judgment of the trial court it was pointed out that petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1000/- from the date of decree towards occupation charge of the buildings till the date of vacating the premises. 6. On going through the judgment made available, the submission appears to be true. It needs to be noticed that in the second appeal disposed of, no alteration of the amount fixed by the court below ie to pay Rs.1000/- per month from the date of decree was made. There is no justification for the contention taken now by the petitioner. 7. If that is so, petitioner is bound to pay Rs.1,000/- from the date of decree till date on vacating the premises. The submission made by the petitioner therefore, does not appear to be correct. There is some dispute regarding as to whether the affidavit as directed by this court has been filed before the court below. Whatever that be, considering the facts and circumstances in the case, the following directions are issued: 1. Petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of mesne profit till date within two weeks from today and continue C.R.P.Nos. 131 of 2011 and 132 of 2011 3 to pay mesne profit till the expiry of six months. 2. He will be allowed to continue the occupation as per the order of this court subject to the condition that the arrears are paid as directed above and filing an affidavit as directed by this Court. These C.R.Ps are disposed of. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln