S.M. Salim vs Kamaludeen

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The tenant/judgment debtor in E.P. No. 108/2009 in RCP No. 5/2005 of the Munsiff Court, Nedumangadu is the Petitioner in this original petition under Article 227. He was the revision Petitioner before this Court in Ext.P1 revision u/s 20 of Act 2 of 1965. Under Ext.P1, this Court dismissed the revision and granted to him time till 31/12/2011 for surrendering the premises subject to certain conditions. It is evident that the Petitioner complied with all the conditions except the condition that he shall pay occupational charges to the landlord with effect from 1/12/2010 at the rate of Rs. 1250/- per month.

Sri. Latheesh Sebastion, learned Counsel for the Petitioner would fairly concede before us that the amounts due for the month of December, 2010 and January 2011 were not paid on time. The learned Counsel''s submission was that the amounts were tendered to the landlord directly and he did not accept the same. The further submission was that the amount was then tendered to the landlord''s counsel and the counsel also did not accept the same. Still further submission was that thereupon the amount was sent by Money Order on 9/2/2011 and that the same was refused. The learned Execution Court however was not inclined to accept the above submissions which were addressed before that court by the advocate for the revision Petitioner. Under Ext.P6 order, the learned Munsiff has found that the conditions imposed by this Court under Ext.P1 have not been complied with. The learned Munsiff has also observed that there was no material to support the claim that the amount was sent by Money Order on 9/2/2011. Along with the original petition, Ext.P4 receipt issued by the Department of Post is produced. The same will show that the amount towards the rent for the months of December 2010 and January 2011 were sent by Money Order on 9/2/2011 and refused by the landlord.

We, on considering the original petition for admission, issued notice to the landlord by special messenger. Adv.G. Ram Mohan has entered appearance before us on behalf of the landlord.

All the submissions of Sri. Latheesh Sebastion were forcefully resisted by Mr. Ram Mohan. We do find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel that there was non compliance with the conditions imposed by us in Ext.P1 and that there was lack of diligence on the part of the tenant in complying with the above conditions. Still, we feel that there is justification for showing indulgence subjecting the Petitioner to terms. Hence, we allow the original petition to the extent of keeping Ext.P6 in abeyance till 31/12/2011 on condition that the Petitioner will pay to the Respondent/landlord either directly or through his advocate in this Court a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as costs within ten days from today.