IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP (RC).No. 735 of 2011 ---------------------------- PROCEEDINGS OF THE TAHSILDAR & ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER, KOLLAM. ---------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MATHEW NOBERT FERNANDEZ, NORMAY MOUNT, TUET, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SMT.MANJU RAJAN SRI.K.JAYASANKAR (KAPRASSERY) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER (TAHSILDAR), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. JAMES JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, MALIEKKAL ELECTRONICS, RESIDING AT MALIEKKAL HOUSE, BEHIND SANKARAS HOSPITAL, KOLLAM-691 001. ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) FOR R2 SMT.K.G.BINDU FOR R2 SMT.PRINCY XAVIER FOR R2 THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ O. P. [R.C.] No.735 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P10 order passed by the Accommodation Controller, Kollam. Under Ext.P10, the petitioner/landlord has been directed to attend to “the necessary maintenance works” under Section 17(2) of Act 2 of 1965 as per the estimate of Public Works Department. Ext.P3 is the above estimate. The grievance which is voiced by the petitioner/landlord is that it is not “periodical repairs and maintenance” as envisaged by Section 17(2) that are mentioned in Ext.P3. Implementing Ext.P3 will amount to substantial renovation of the building. 2. On 23/03/11 we heard Sri.Mohan Pulickkal the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.G.Bindu, the learned counsel for the respondents for some time and we asked the learned O. P. [R.C.] No.735 of 2011 -2- counsel for the respondents, Smt.Bindu to seek instructions from their clients as to whether they are prepared to execute the work mentioned in Ext.P3 by spending their own money. Today as instructed by her parties Smt.Bindu has informed us that they will be willing to execute all the works in Ext.P3 by spending their own money. It was also submitted by Smt.Bindu that the respondents will not be claiming any adjustment against rent in arrears or future rent or any reimbursement at any time from the petitioner for the money spent on account of doing Ext.P3 works pursuant to Ext.P10. We record the above submissions and dispose of the O.P. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/- O. P. [R.C.] No.735 of 2011 -3-