O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

2

commissioner were marked and the rent control petition was adjourned to 21.08.2007 for orders. On that day, an exparte order of eviction was passed under sections 11(2)

(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Challenging that order, the tenants filed R.C.A.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam. By judgment delivered on 28.08.2008, the rent control appellate authority allowed R.C.A.No.51 of 2007, set aside the exparte order of eviction and remanded R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 to the rent control court for afresh disposal. The rent control petition was thereupon called in the rent control court on 29.09.2008. On that day, it was adjourned to 04.11.2008. On 04.11.2008, it was adjourned to 03.12.2008 for steps. On that day, it was included in the list and posted for trial to 08.01.2009. On 08.01.2009, when the case was called on for trial, since the power of attorney of the landlord had not filed a proof affidavit and the power of attorney holder was also not present, the rent control petition was dismissed for

4

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

3

default. The landlord thereupon filed I.A.No.210 of 2010 on 24.01.2009 to set aside the order dismissing R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 for default. That application stood posted for the landlord's evidence to 15.03.2010. On that day, as he was absent, the rent control court dismissed I.A.No.210 of 2010 for default. The landlord thereupon filed I.A.No.437 of 2010 to review the order dismissing I.A.No.210 of 2010 in R.C. (OP)No.3 of 2006 for default. That application was heard and dismissed by the rent control court by order passed on

27.09.2010.

3. The landlord carried the matter in appeal by filing R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam. After notice to and hearing the tenants who were joined as respondents 1 to 8 therein, the rent control appellate authority allowed R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 by Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 28.01.2014 and remanded R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 to the rent control court, subject to payment of costs. The appellate authority also

5

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

4

directed the parties to appear before the rent control court on 28.02.2014. It was observed that, unless the costs awarded is paid within the stipulated time, the appeal will be treated as dismissed. The operative portion of Ext.P1 judgment, allowing R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 is extracted below:-

"In the result, the appeal is allowed on condition that the appellant shall pay a cost of 4,000/- to the₹ respondent and deposit 2,000/- to the District Legal₹ Services Authority within 15 days on receipt of the certified copy of this order or within the same period from the date of appearance before the court below, whichever is earlier. The original petition is restored to file and the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 28.02.2014. It is needless to say that unless the cost is paid within the stipulated time, the appeal will be treated as dismissed. The learned Rent Controller will dispose of the original petition at the earliest bearing in mind that the said petition was filed in the year 2006".

4. Our examination of the records reveal that R.C.(O.P)No.3 of 2006 was not called in the rent control court on 28.02.2014. Neither the landlord nor the tenants were present either in person or through counsel on that

6

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

5

day. The records also reveal that the rent control petition was taken up before the rent control court only on 13.03.2014. On that day, evidently for the reason that both sides were not present in person or through counsel, the rent control court directed notice to be given to both sides and posted the rent control petition to 27.03.2014. On 27.03.2014, the rent control court adjourned the case to 02.06.2014 to produce proof of deposit of costs with the District Legal Services Authority. On 02.06.2014, the rent control court adjourned R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 for trial to 10.07.2014. On that day, for the reason that the tenants were not present, exparte evidence on the side of the landlord was recorded, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked, arguments on the side of the landlord were heard and the case was adjourned to 22.07.2014 for orders. On 22.07.2014 it was adjourned for orders to 25.07.2014 and on that day it was adjourned to 31.07.2014. On 31.07.2014, the rent control court passed Ext.P4 order of eviction under

7

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

6

sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Shortly after the exparte order of eviction was passed, the landlord filed E.P.No.60 of 2014 to execute the order of eviction. On that petition, the Court of the Musiff of Karunagappally, issued notice to the tenants with the date fixed for hearing as 16.01.2015. On 16.01.2015 there was no sitting and therefore E.P.No.60 of 2014 was adjourned to 04.02.2015. On that day, the tenants including the petitioner herein entered appearance through counsel and the execution petition was adjourned to 05.03.2015 for objections.

5. The 'B' diary in E.P.60 of 2014 in R.C.(OP) No.3 of 2006 discloses that when it was taken up for hearing on 05.03.2015, it was submitted on behalf of the tenants that objections have been filed and thereupon the execution petition was adjourned to 19.03.2015 for hearing. On 19.03.2015, for the reason that the judgment debtors/tenants have not filed objections as submitted on 05.03.2015 and they were absent on their names being

8

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

7

called, the execution court adjourned the execution petition to 19.03.2015 for orders. On that day, the execution court ordered delivery on 25.03.2015 and directed the execution petition to be called on 26.03.2015 for delivery report. On 26.03.2015, on noticing that the delivery was effected, E.P.No.60 of 2014 was closed. The records disclose that delivery was effected with Police aid after breaking open the lock of the tenanted premises on 24.03.2015. Ext.P8 produced along with the instant original petition establishes the said fact. However there is no contemporaneous material available before us to show that the permission of the court was obtained to break open the lock or that police protection was ordered. There is also no indication in Ext.P8 delivery report that there was any resistance or obstruction from the side of the judgment debtors. The petitioner had on the day delivery of the petition schedule property was effected, filed E.A.No.35 of 2015 in E.P.No.60 of 2014 in R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 (Ext.P7

9

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

8

in the original petition) praying that the order passed by the execution court on 19.03.2015, directing delivery of the petition schedule building may be set aside. In view of the fact that E.P.No.60 of 2014 was closed after recording delivery on 26.03.2015, E.A.No.35 of 2015 would have been closed or dismissed as infructuous.

6. It appears that on the day E.P.No.60 of 2014 was closed, the tenant had filed I.A.No.789 of 2015 in R.C. (OP)No.3 of 2006, praying that the exparte order of eviction passed by the rent control court on 31.07.2014 may be set aside, accompanied by I.A.No.790 of 2015 to condone the delay of 180 days in filing I.A.No.789 of 2015. The substance of the averments therein is that before the order of eviction was passed, the tenants had not been put on notice or heard. It is thereafter that the instant original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed before this court on 10.05.2015, challenging the order of eviction passed by the rent control court on 31.07.2014

10

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

9

(Ext.P4), the order passed by the execution court on E.P.No.60 of 2014 in R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 (Ext.P5), the delivery report dated 25.03.2015 (Ext.P8) and Ext.P10 order closing E.P.No.60 of 2014 in R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 and praying for the following reliefs:

i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4, P5, P8 and P10 and set aside Exts. P4, P5, P8 and P10 and direct the Rent Control Court, Karunagappally to restore the possession of the petition schedule building to the respondents in R.C.(OP)No.3 /2006.

ii) To declare that Ext.P4 order, P5 and P10 orders and P8 delivery kychit are per-se illegal and passed without jurisdiction.

iii) To direct the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the waste and damages sustained due to the illegal and irregular eviction of petitioner and others and the damages caused to the articles kept in the damage and loss suffered by the petitioner.

iv) To direct the Rent Control Court, Karunagappally to consider and pass orders in I.A.No.789/2015 for setting aside the exparte order in, a petition in I.A.No.790/2015 for condoning the delay in filing the petition to set exparte and another petition in I.A.No.791/2015 for restoration of the possession of the building which was illegally taken possession and also recovering an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as damages filed in RCOPNo.3/2006 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

v) To award cost.

vi) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

11

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

10

7. The case set out in the instant original petition is that as the terms of Ext.P1 order of remand have not been complied with by the landlord (the reason being the costs awarded was not paid to the respondents/tenants as directed in the order of remand), the rent control court had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction. It is also contended that after remand, the tenants were not put on notice by the rent control court.

8. In view of the contentions raised in the instant original petition, the original petition was admitted and notice ordered to the respondent. This court also called for the records. Thereafter, after hearing learned counsel on both sides and after examining the records, a Division Bench of this court of which one of us (P.N.Ravindran, J.) was a member, passed the following order on 22.12.2015.

"One of the issues that arise for consideration in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the landlord in R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Karunagappally had

12

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

11

paid the sum of Rs.4,000/- as costs pursuant to and in terms of the order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam on 28.01.2014 in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011. The records disclose that R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 was dismissed for default on 8.1.2009 for the reason that the landlord was not present. He thereupon filed I.A.No.210 of 2010 to restore R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 to file. That application stood posted for the landlord's evidence on 15.3.2010. On that day also he was absent, with the result, I.A.No.210 of 2010 in R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 was dismissed for default. He thereupon filed I.A.No.437 of 2010 to review the order dismissing I.A.No.210 of 2010 for default. That application was dismissed by the rent control court by order passed on 27.9.2010. The landlord thereupon filed R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam. After notice to the respondents/tenants and after considering the rival contentions, the rent control appellate authority allowed R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 subject to the payment of Rs.4,000/- as costs to the respondents/tenants and Rs.2,000/- as costs to the District Legal Services Authority, Kollam. The operative portion of

13

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

12

the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam on 28.1.2014 allowing R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 is extracted below:

"In the result, the appeal is allowed on condition that the appellant shall pay a cost of Rs.4,000/- to the respondent and deposit Rs.2,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority within 15 days on receipt of the certified copy of this order or within the same period from the date of appearance before the court below, whichever is earlier. The original petition is restored to file and the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 28.2.2014. It is needless to say that unless the cost is paid within the stipulated time, the appeal will be treated as dismissed. The learned Rent Controller will dispose of the original petition at the earliest bearing in mind that the said petition was filed in the year 2006."

2. The substance of the said order is that the appeal will stand allowed in the event of the appellant/landlord paying the sum of Rs.4,000/- as costs to the respondents/tenants and depositing Rs.2,000/- as costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Kollam. Such payment/ deposit was required to be made within 15 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order or within 15 days from the date fixed for appearance before the rent control court namely 15 days from 28.2.2014. The fact that the parties were to appear on 28.2.2014 is evident from the order of remand. The rent control appellate authority had also stipulated that unless the

14

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

13

costs awarded is paid within time, the appeal will be treated as dismissed.

3. The records before us show that R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 was not called before the rent control court on 28.2.2014. Neither the landlord nor the tenants were present through counsel or in person on that day. The B diary in R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 discloses that the only entry therein after 8.01.2009, when R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 was initially dismissed for default, is the entry made on 13.3.2014. The said entry shows that on that day the rent control court directed notice to be given to both sides and posted the rent control petition to 27.3.2014. On that day it was adjourned to 2.06.2014 for producing the memo evidencing the payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs to the District Legal Services Authority, Kollam. There is no endorsement regarding the production of such a memo evidencing payment of the sum of Rs.4,000/- as costs to the respondents in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011. The B diary shows that on 2.6.2014, R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 was adjourned to 10.07.2014 for trial. On 10.07.2014, the landlord appeared through counsel and the respondents were not present. Thereupon Exts.A1 to A4 produced

15

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

14

along with the proof affidavit filed by the landlord were marked, arguments were heard and the rent control petition was adjourned for orders to 22.7.2014. On that day it was again adjourned to 25.7.2014 and thereafter to 31.7.2014 and on 31.7.2014, an order of eviction was passed. Neither the B diary nor the lower court records disclose that notice had been issued from the rent control court to the tenants. There is no material to enable us to ascertain whether the sum of Rs.4,000/- was paid as costs within the stipulated time namely within 15 days from 28.2.2014 or within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam on 28.1.2014 in R.C.A. No.12 of 2011. Unless and until the costs awarded is paid within the time limit stipulated by the rent control appellate authority, the appeal will stand dismissed. The rent control court could have proceeded to dispose of R.C. (O.P.)No.3 of 2006 afresh only if there was proof before it to show that costs had been paid in time. Such proof is evidently lacking in the instant case. If the landlord did not appear on 28.2.2014 that should have entailed a dismissal of the rent control petition. It is evident that

16

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

15

both the landlord and the tenants did not appear on 28.2.2014. The case was called after remand for the first time in the rent control court only on 13.3.2014. Though on that day the rent control court directed notice to be given on both sides, there is no material to show that notice was served on the landlord and the tenants. It is the specific case of the tenants that after the order of remand, no notice had been served on them. They have also stated that the sum of Rs.4,000/- directed to be paid by the rent control appellate authority as costs has not been paid to them or their counsel. There is no material to show that notice was issued from the rent control court after the order of remand to the tenants and such notice was served on them.

4. When these facts were brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the appellant/landlord, learned counsel submitted that though he has filed a counter affidavit in the rent control petition today, he could not state anything with certainty as regards the payment of the sum of Rs.4,000/- as costs to the respondents before the rent control appellate authority. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord however submitted that costs

17

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

16

was paid to the District Legal Services Authority. That statement is supported by the report dated 21.12.2015 submitted by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kollam to the Registrar (Judicial) of this court which discloses that the sum of Rs.2,000/- was paid as costs on 1.02.2014. Learned counsel for the appellant/landlord submitted that in such circumstances, the landlord may be granted time till the reopening to file an affidavit and state whether the sum of Rs.4,000/- was paid as costs, the date on which the said sum was paid and also evidence to prove such payment. In view of the fact that the rent control court would get jurisdiction to entertain R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 afresh only if the sum of Rs.4,000/- had been paid within the time limit stipulated by the rent control appellate authority, we deem it appropriate to grant to the respondent time till 5.01.2016 to file an affidavit and state whether the appellant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 has complied with the stipulation regarding payment of the sum of Rs.4,000/- as costs within 15 days from 28.2.2014 or within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order of

18

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

17

remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam on 28.1.2014 in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011, whichever period expires earlier and produce proof of such payment if any.

Call on 6.01.2016. Registry to handover a copy of this order to learned counsel on both sides on usual terms".

9. The Division Bench had after going through the records arrived at the prima facie conclusion that there is no material to show that as directed in Ext.P1 order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam on 28.01.2014 in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011, the landlord had paid the sum of 4,000/- as costs to the counsel₹ appearing for the tenants either before the appellate authority or before the rent control court. This court has also entered a finding that after the order of remand was passed by the rent control appellate authority, though the rent control court had on 13.03.2014 directed notice to be given to both sides, there is no material to show that notice

19

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

18

was served on the landlord or the tenants. This court also took note of the fact that though the rent control appellate authority had directed the parties to appear before the rent control court on 28.02.2014, both sides did not appear on that date. The Division Bench had also taken note of the fact that there is proof as regards payment of the sum of 2,000/- as costs to the Secretary, District Legal Services₹ Authority, Kollam and such payment was made within time. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench deemed it appropriate to grant to the landlord (the respondent in this original petition) time to file an affidavit and state whether the direction regarding payment of costs in Ext.P1 order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam on 28.01.2014 in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 has been complied with. The landlord has accordingly filed an additional counter affidavit dated 05.01.2016 and produced with it an affidavit dated 23.12.2015 sworn to by Sri.A.Jani, learned counsel who appeared for the landlords in

20

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

19

R.C.A.No.12 of 2011, to the effect that he had paid the costs awarded by the rent control appellate authority to the respondents within the stipulated period. A receipt evidencing such payment or the date of payment is however not forthcoming. The petitioner herein has sworn to a reply affidavit dated 06.01.2016 contending that costs was not paid either to the tenants or to their counsel Sri.K.Somasekhara Pillai, who had appeared for them in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011.

10. We heard Sri.K.Subashchandra Bose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.N.K.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the materials placed before us including the lower court records, which have been called for. Ext.P1 order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam on 28.01.2014 in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 will take effect, only if the landlord, the appellant therein has within 15 days from 28.02.2014 or

21

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

20

within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order of remand, which ever period expires earlier, paid to the respondents in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam, the sum of 4,000/- as costs and a further sum of 2,000/- as costs to₹ ₹ the District Legal Services Authority, Kollam. The purport of the order is that, the sum of 4,000/- should be paid as₹ cost either to the respondents/tenants or to their counsel in the rent control appellate authority and the sum of 2,000/-₹ should be paid to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority. The appellate authority had also directed both parties to appear before the rent control court on 28.02.2014. It was further observed that in the event of default in payment of costs, the appeal (R.C.A.No.12 of 2011) shall be treated as dismissed.

11. The 'B' diary discloses that R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 was not called in the rent control court on 28.02.2014. As a matter of fact, neither the landlord nor the tenants

22

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

21

appeared before the rent control court on that day. The rent control petition was called in the rent control court after the order of remand was passed by the appellate authority only on 13.03.2014. On that day, the rent control court directed notice to be given to both sides, evidently meaning, thereby that they were not represented on 13.03.2014. The records however do not disclose that notice was ever taken out either to the landlord or to the tenant. When the rent control petition was taken up on 27.03.2014, it was adjourned to 02.06.2014 for producing the receipt evidencing deposit of costs with the District Legal Services Authority. However no such receipt was produced before the rent control court on 02.06.2014. The 'B' diary does not disclose that such a receipt was produced on 02.06.2014. The rent control court did not deem it appropriate to direct the landlord to produce proof of having paid the sum of 4,000/- as costs to the counsel appearing for the₹ respondent in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011. Without ascertaining

23

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

22

whether the direction regarding payment of costs has been complied with, the rent control court adjourned R.C.(OP). No.3 of 2006 to 10.07.2014 for evidence after including the case in the list for that day. On 10.07.2014 the landlord appeared through counsel, evidently meaning thereby, that the landlord had not appeared earlier. Since the tenants were not present, evidence on the side of the landlord was recorded, Exts.A1 to A4 were marked, arguments were heard and the rent control petition was adjourned for orders to 22.07.2014, thereafter to 25.07.2014 and still later to 31.07.2014. On that day, an order of eviction as prayed for was passed. Even in that order, though in the cause title it is stated that the petition is restored to file as per order in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011, nothing is stated as regards payment of costs either to the District Legal Services Authority or to the tenants/respondents in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011. On verification with the District Legal Services Authority, we are informed by the Secretary,

24

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

23

District Legal Services Authority that the sum of 2,000/-₹ awarded as costs was remitted on 01.02.2014 and receipt No.1642 was issued to Sri.A.Jani, learned counsel appearing for the landlord/appellant in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011. As per the terms of the order of remand, the rent control court will get jurisdiction to try and dispose of R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 afresh only if the stipulation regarding payment of two sets of costs, namely one set to the respondents in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 and the other to the District Legal Services Authority is complied with. There is now no dispute regarding payment of costs to the District Legal Services Authority. There is however dispute between the parties as to whether the direction regarding payment of costs to the respondents in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 has been complied with.

12. While the tenants contend that costs was not paid, the landlord's case based solely on an affidavit sworn to by Sri.A.Jani, their counsel in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 is that

25

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

24

costs was paid. The date on which such payment was effected is however not forthcoming. There is also no contemporaneous material either in the records or with the party/counsel to prove such payment. As per the terms of the order of remand the sum of 4,000/- had to be paid as₹ costs to the respondents in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 (meaning thereby the tenants in R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006) within 15 days from 28.02.2014 (the date fixed for appearance in the rent control court) or within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order of remand which ever is earlier. Though the date fixed for appearance in the rent control court namely 28.02.2014 was known to both sides, they did not appear on that day before the rent control court. The case was also not called in the rent control court on that day. There is no material before us, as regards the date on which the certified copy of Ext.P1 order of remand passed by the appellate authority on 28.01.2014 in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 was obtained by the landlord. As per

26

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

25

the order of remand which ever period expires first has to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the last date fixed for payment of costs. If before that day, the sum of 4,000/- awarded as costs is not paid, the consequence is₹ that R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 will stand dismissed. This aspect of the matter was not noticed by the rent control court when it proceeded to dispose of the rent control petition afresh by order passed on 31.07.2014. The rent control court also failed to take note of the fact that notwithstanding the order passed on 31.07.2014, notice was not given to the tenants. The rent control court also failed to notice the fact that it was long after the expiry of the period fixed for payment of costs, that the landlord appeared through counsel.

13. In the ordinary course, this should have persuaded us to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the rent control court on 31.07.2014 as also the order effecting delivery and directed re-delivery. We however

27

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

26

desist from doing so, for the reason that the tenants have moved the rent control court by filing I.A.No.789 of 2015 to have the order of eviction passed on 31.07.2014 set aside, after condoning the delay of 180 days in filing such an application. They also filed I.A.No.790 of 2015 to condone the delay of 180 days in filing I.A.No.789 of 2015. Their application for redelivery, I.A.No.791 of 2015, is also pending. As stated earlier, the rent control court will get jurisdiction to dispose of the rent control petition afresh, only if the sum of 4,000/- had been paid as costs within the₹ stipulated time. As stated earlier, there is no material before us to show that such payment was in fact made within the stipulated time. However, as stated earlier, we do not propose to straight away interfere with the orders passed by the rent control court without affording the landlord an opportunity to prove that the sum of 4,000/-₹ awarded as costs to the respondents in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 was paid, within the time limit stipulated by the Rent

28

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

27

Control Appellate Authority, Kollam in Ext.P1 judgment delivered on 28.01.2014. However, in view of the fact that R.C.(O.P.)No.3 of 2006 was disposed of after remand by the rent control court without notice to the tenants, we are of the considered opinion that the order of eviction passed by the rent control court on 31.07.2014 cannot be sustained. We accordingly dispose of this original petition with the following directions:

The Rent Control Court, Karunagappally shall pass orders allowing I.A.No.789 of 2015 and I.A.No.790 of 2015 in R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this order. The landlord and the tenants shall in order to enable the rent control court to act as directed above, appear through counsel before the rent control court on 29.02.2016. The rent control court shall thereupon consider the question whether the landlord namely the appellant in R.C.A.No.12

29

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

28

of 2011 had complied with the stipulation regarding payment of the sum of 4,000/- as costs to the respondents₹ in R.C.A.No.12 of 2011. This enquiry shall be completed before the closure of the civil courts for the summer vacation of 2016. Needless to say, if costs was not paid within the stipulated time, the rent control court will have no jurisdiction to dispose of R.C.(OP)No.3 of 2006 afresh. In the event of the rent control court entering a finding that the sum of 4,000/- was paid as costs to the respondents in₹ R.C.A.No.12 of 2011 by the appellant therein within the stipulated time, the rent control court shall dispose of R.C. (OP)No.3 of 2006 afresh, after affording both sides an opportunity to adduce oral and documentary evidence. Depending upon the outcome of the enquiry to be held by the rent control court, it will be open to the tenants to move the execution court for redelivery. Until such time as the rent control court takes a decision in the matter, the status- quo as on today as regards the petition schedule property in

30

O.P.(R.C.)No.69 / 2015

29

R.C.(OP)No. 3 of 2006 shall be maintained. In other words, the landlord shall not let it out to any one else and shall not transfer possession thereof to any third party. In view of the aforesaid directions, the Rent Control Court shall pass an order closing I.A.No.791 of 2015 in R.C.(O.P)No.3 of 2006, reserving liberty with the tenants to move the execution court for redelivery, if they succeed in the enquiry to be held rent control court, regarding payment of the sum of 4,000/- as costs. ₹

Sd/-

P.N. RAVINDRAN,

(Judge)

Sd/-

K. RAMAKRISHNAN,

(Judge)

//True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss

31