Lakshmi vs Kuppuswamy Chettiar and Others

K- K. Narendran. J.

The tenant against whom eviction was ordered u/s 11 (2) of Kerala Act 2 of 1965 is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The grievance of the petitioner is against the order of the District Judge, Palghat passed u/s 20 of Kerala Act 2 of 1965, refusing to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Palghat confirming the order of the Rent Control Court rejecting the petitioner''s request to grant further time for payment of arrears of rent. The petition for eviction filed against the petitioner u/s 11 (2) of the Act was allowed by the Rent Control Court giving two months'' time for deposit of arrears. The petitioner did not clear off the arrears within that time. At the request of the petitioner, the Rent Control Court granted an extension of one month from 18-3-1981 for clearing off the arrears of rent. But the petitioner could not pay off the arrears within that time also. In the meanwhile, the landlord filed execution petition for taking delivery. Thereupon, the petitioner filed two interim applications before the Rent Control Court; one for further extension of time for deposit and another for condonation of delay in filing that application for extension. The Rent Control Court, which was executing the order for eviction, rejected both the petitions. Against the above order, the petitioner filed two appeals before the Appellate Authority, Palghat which also met with the same fate. Thereupon, the petitioner challenged the judgments of the Appellate Authority before the District Judge, Palghat. The Learned District Judge also rejected the petitioners contentions and dismissed the revision. It was thereupon that the petitioner approached this court with this Civil Revision Petition.

The question that arises for consideration is whether a tenant against whom there is an order for eviction u/s 11 (2), can have the luxury of more than one extension of time for payment after the expiry of the time for payment granted by the order for eviction. In this case, two months'' time was granted by the Rent Control Court by the order allowing eviction on the ground of arrears. The petitioner did not make the payment. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for and got an extension of one month for payment. Within that time also, admittedly, payment of arrears was not made. It was thereafter, or rather long after that, that the petitioner again applied for extension of time for payment. Going by Section 11 (2) (c), which provides for the grant of time for payment of arrears, it is clear that the power the Rent Control Court has under the provision is to grant ''such further period'' after the expiry of the period for payment of arrears granted by the order for eviction. The question then is whether the Rent Control Court can grant more than one extension of time for payment. The language of the Section is clear that if extension of time is granted by the Rent Control Court once, then the power to grant extension of time for payment provided by Section 11 (2) (c) is exhausted and thereafter, no question of granting any further extension of time for payment in exercise of the powers u/s 11 (2) (c) arises. In this case, what the authorizes below have held is also the same. The learned District Judge was not in the wrong in refusing to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court rejecting the petitioner''s request for further extension of time as there was nothing irregular, illegal or improper as far as that decision of the Appellate Authority was concerned. Hence, it goes without saying that the order of the District Judge impugned in this case does not suffer from any infirmity which warrants an interference by this Court u/s 115, C. P. C. So, the Civil Revision Petition can only be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be given some breathing time to vacate the premises. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be a direction that the petitioner should not be dispossessed for three months from today if, within two weeks from today, the petitioner gives an undertaking before the Rent Control Court that he will hand back possession of the premise on the expiry of three months. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above direction. No costs.