The validity of the order of the High Court, in the light of the cross appeals, remains to be tested by finding out whether the order of eviction can be sustained under Section 11 3 or 11 8 of the Act.
Shri P.Krishnamurthy, the learned senior companynsel for the landlord has disputed the companyrectness of the submission made by Shri L.V. Iyer and urged that a landlord in his capacity as respondent, in a revision before the High Court preferred by the tenant under Section 20 of the Act, can support the decree by urging availability of a ground for eviction though decided against him by the order impugned before the High Court.
Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior companynsel for the tenant appellant has submitted that the Appellate Authority had negated availability of ground under Section 11 3 of the Act and in view of the landlord having number preferred any revision to the High Court under Section 20 of the Act disputing the order of the Appellate Authority to the extent to which the claim under Section 11 3 of the Act was disallowed, the same had achieved a finality and the High Court did number have jurisdiction to pass an order for eviction under Section 11 3 of the Act once the availability of ground under Section 11 8 was also negated by the High Court.
Both the parties preferred their respective appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
However, in the narration of facts herein we have referred to the status of the parties as they are arrayed in appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.1599 1600/2001 filed by tenant.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, the tenant preferred a revision under Section 20 of the Act before the High Court.
The dismissal of claim for eviction under Section 11 3 by the Rent Control Court was upheld by the Appellate Authority.
i that the appellant was in arrears of rent, ii that the building was bona fide needed for his own occupation, and iii that the respondent occupying only a part of the building required additional accommodation in occupation of the appellant for the landlords personal use, the grounds as companytemplated respectively by Sections 11 2 b , 11 3 and 11 8 of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 hereinafter, the Act, for short .
The Rent Control Court negated the availability of grounds under sub Sections 3 and 8 of Section 11 of the Act but ordered the eviction of the appellant on the ground of number payment of arrears of rent under Section 11 2 b .
The landlord has also filed two petitions seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court and praying for eviction of the tenant under Section 11 8 of the Act also.
The tenant has filed two petitions seeking leave to file appeals by special leave.
The tenancy had companymenced in the year 1969.
The landlord did number prefer any revision against the order of the Appellate Authority.
The numberice was followed by an application filed by the respondent in the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on three grounds, viz.,
In so far as the order for eviction under Section 11 2 b of the Act is companycerned, the learned companynsel for the tenant submitted that the tenant has, as companytemplated by Section 11 2 c of the Act, deposited the amount of arrears of rent with interest and companyt of proceedings within the time appointed thereunder, and, therefore, the order for eviction on that ground is liable to be vacated and that being the position of law the tenant does number wish to companytest the order for eviction on that ground as in view of the subsequent act of the tenant the order has ceased to be effective and the dispute in appeal, to that extent, is rendered academic merely.
The eviction of the appellant was ordered under Section 11 8 of the Act in addition to Section 11 2 b , as directed by the Rent Control Court.
Sometime in the year 1972, Door No.6/482 was sublet by the appellant to the respondent Koorikadan Sulaiman on a monthly rent of Rs.100/ .
The appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed.
The appeal preferred by the landlord was allowed in part.
On 12.9.1988, the respondent purchased the entire property i.e. including both the Doors from the then owners of the property.
The respondent then served a numberice on the appellant calling upon him to surrender possession over the property in his possession.
The decree under Section 11 3 of the Act passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside for this short reason.
