IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 RCRev..No. 201 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.71/2007 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM RCP.83/2006 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... 1ST APPELLANT IN APPELLATE COURT AND R1 IN RCC: ---------------------------------------------- M.V.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN CHETTIAR, 34/2164, KARIYA PARAMBU, CHETHANA JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. T.S.SUNIL, S/O.K.K.SANKARAN, SHANKAR STORES, OPP.KALOOR MARKET, KOCHI-17, RESIDING AT THEKKUMTHALAPADAM HOUSE, PACHALAM P.O., KOCHI-12. 2. JALAUDHEEN C.M., S/O.M.K.MUHAMMED, SRI.SABARI GLASS HOUSE, 44/2129, OPP:KALOOR MARKET, KOCHI-17. BY ADV.N.M.MOHAMED AYUB THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RCRev..No. 201 of 2008() ORDER ON I.A.NO.1865/2008 IN R.C.R.NO.201/2008 DISMISSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 25/08/2008 \\TRUE COPY// P.A to Judge P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R.C.R.No.201 of 2008-D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 O R D E R P.R.RAMAN, J. The revision petitioner is the tenant, who challenges an order passed under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for default of payment of the admitted arrears of rent. The land lord sought eviction under different grounds, including Section 11(2)(b). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. An order was passed on 23/01/2007 giving 30 days time to the tenant to deposit all admitted arrears of rent and posted the case to 13/02/2007 for pre-trial steps and also listed the case for trial on 01/06/2007. No payment was effected on 13/02/2007. On 13/04/2007, because of the non compliance of the order of the court below, the landlord moved for an application for advancement of the case. Accordingly, on 13/04/2007 the case was posted to 25/05/2007. On 25/05/2007, the tenant did not show cause for non deposit of the admitted arrears of rent. The matter R.C.R.No.201/2008-D -:2:- was posted next day, 26/05/2007 for orders, and orders were passed on that day itself. It is averred that the counsel for the tenant appeared on 01/06/2007 and was ready for trial, the date on which the case was listed, and realised that the eviction was already ordered on 26/05/2007, and subsequently, the tenant filed an application for enlargement of time and that application was itself filed on 22/06/2007. According to the revision petitioner he had filed yet another application on 01/06/2007 also. However, no such copy of the application is produced in the case. 4. At any rate, even on 01/06/2007, the date on which the case stood posted originally, he could have only showed cause for non deposit of the admitted amount because he had to deposit the amount on or before 13/04/2007 as ordered by the court below. It is not his case that he was prepared to make deposit on 01/06/2007 also. On the other hand, an application was filed only on 22/06/2007 that too for enlargement of time. In other words, he had no sufficient cause for non deposit of the amount. If it is his case for enlargement of time, he would have applied for it before the expiry of the date on which he ought to have deposited the R.C.R.No.201/2008-D -:3:- amount. That also he did not do. In the circumstances, his application for enlargement of time was rightly rejected. 5. In the circumstances, the order passed by the court below under Section 12(3) of the Act cannot be faulted. The appeal against the order so passed by the Rent Control Court was affirmed by the appellate authority also. We do not find any error of law committed by the authorities below in passing the order under Section 12(3) of the Act in the factual situation as stated above. We find no merit in the revision. It is accordingly, dismissed. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel, Sri.Vinod Bhat appearing for the petitioner sought for some time to give vacant possession of the building. Having heard both sides, we think that it is only appropriate that the petitioner be given a reasonable time to give away vacant possession of the building. Accordingly, we direct that the execution of the order passed by the Rent Control Court will stand deferred till 31/12/2008 on the following conditions: i. That the petitioner herein shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Execution Court agreeing to R.C.R.No.201/2008-D -:4:- surrender vacant possession of the premises on or before 31/12/2008 and such undertaking shall be given within a period of three weeks from today. ii.That he shall deposit the entire arrears of rent, if any, within the aforesaid period of three weeks before the Execution Court. iii.That he shall continue to pay the amount equivalent to the monthly rent without default on the due date for use and occupation, until vacant possession of the premises is surrendered to the landlord. iv. He shall not induct any third party to the premises. In case of failure to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the order of eviction passed by the authorities below will be enforced forthwith. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms