Mathew Nobert Fernandez vs James Joseph

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—The landlord is the revision Petitioner. He sought for eviction of the Respondent tenant on the grounds u/s 11(3), 11(8), 11(4)(ii) and Section 11(2)(b). The statutory authorities have concurrently found that the petition for eviction to the extent the same pertains to the substantial ground (ground other than Section 11(2)(b) is premature since the RCP was instituted before the expiry of the period of lease. Notwithstanding the same it is seen that the authorities have entered findings on the merits of the eviction grounds. Having gone through the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court we feel that the authorities below were right in their view that the rent control petition was filed before the expiry of the period agreed upon by the parties and hence liable to be rejected u/s 11(9). Under the above circumstance, we dispose of the RCR giving specific opportunity to the revision Petitioner to file fresh rent control petition for evicting the Respondent on all available grounds including the ground invoked in the present proceedings that the period of lease has already expired. We make it clear that if fresh proceedings are initiated by the revision Petitioner within three months from today, the Rent Control Court shall dispose of that fresh petition in accordance with law on the merits of the grounds invoked without being influenced in any manner by the findings entered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court in the present proceedings on the merits of the eviction grounds u/s 11(3), 11(8) and 11(4)(ii). It is needless to mention that the Rent Control Court is expected to expedite matters and to take decision in the fresh rent control petition within the statutory time frame of four months.