Nazeer vs Chathoth Punnaroth Nanu

Johnson John, J.

Respondents/tenants in R.C.P. No. 130 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vadakara field this petition challenging Exhibit P17 order dated 09.10.2023 in I.A. No. 15 of 2023, whereby the court below dismissed the application of the tenants to remove the case from the list on the ground that a connected original suit is pending as O.S. No. 24 of 2022 before the Munsiff Court, Vadakara.

The RCP was originally decreed ex parte on 07.03.2019 and subsequently, as per order dated 07.07.2019, the ex parte decree was set aside and case was restored to files. But during the pendency of the petition to set aside the ex parte decree, the tenants were evicted from the building in execution. Thereafter, the tenants filed a petition seeking restitution and the said petition was allowed and possession of the shop rooms were delivered to the tenants on 16.12.2021.

O.S. No. 24 of 2022 was filed by the landlords seeking prohibitory injunction against the defendants/tenants from doing repair works, renovation and from altering the structure of the petition schedule building and committing waste in it. The interim injunction application filed as I.A. No. 2 of 2022 was dismissed, and against the same, C.M.A. No. 3 of 2022 was filed before the Sub Court, Vadakara and the appellate court allowed the CMA as follows:

“Respondents/Defendants are restrained to cause any damage or material alteration in petition schedule shop rooms in the manner materially and permanently reducing its value or utility.

Needless to say, nothing in this order prohibits or inhibits the respondents/defendants from performing necessary repair work of floor, racks, ceiling and other renovation work including interior beautification, white washing and/or painting in the petition schedule shop rooms without causing any damage to the structural stability of the shop rooms, until the disposal of RCP 130/2017 by the Rent Control Court, Vadakara.”

Heard Sri. Alexander Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. R. Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that while the shop rooms were under the custody of the landlords, they committed mischief causing damages and destruction in the shop rooms and thereby, making it impossible for the tenants to restart their business. It is argued that even though the tenants made all efforts to restart the business, that was obstructed and prevented by the landlords and that in view of Section 144 of CPC, it is necessary to place the parties in the position which they would have occupied and therefore, only if the rooms are made fit for restarting the business, the restitution will take into effect. It is also argued that Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('Act' for short) will come into play only after restarting the business in the petition schedule rooms by the tenants and therefore, the Rent Control Petition cannot be tried and decided before the completion of the renovation works and restarting the business.

The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that admittedly the possession of the rooms were delivered to the tenants on 16.12.2021 as per the order in the restitution application and the tenants issued Exhibit B2 notice only on 21.02.2022 requesting the plaintiff to effect repairs to the floors, racks and ceiling, and if the damage was noticed on 16.12.2021, the defendants/tenants should not have waited till 21.02.2022 to sent Exhibit B2 notice . It is also pointed out that the landlords replied as per Exhibit B3 notice, wherein it is specifically stated that the defendants caused considerable damage to the shop rooms with drillers.

In CMA No. 3 of 2022, the appellate court rightly observed that the question as to who is responsible for the damage is a matter to be decided after a full fledged trial and after considering the rival contentions, the appellate court passed a well reasoned and balanced order permitting renovation works without causing any damage to the structural stability of the shop rooms and we find that there is no difficulty in enforcing the said order through the court.

In view of the fact that the question as to who committed the damage is yet to be decided in the trial of the suit, the prayer to adjourn the trial of the Rent Control Petition till the disposal of the suit on merit is not tenable, especially in view of the fact that the possession of the rooms were already delivered to the tenants, and in view of the mandate of Section 24 of the Act, which requires the Rent Control Court to pass final orders in any proceedings before it within four months from the date of appearance of parties thereto. Therefore, we find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Rent Control Court and therefore, this petition, which is devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.