Judgment

K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS is a classic case of not only smack of reasonableness in pursuing the cause, but also the State to actively assist a party who flouts the law and abuses the process of the court. The case has its chequered history but eschewing the irrelevant for the purpose of petition, the material facts are that Smt. Thressia, landlady had an order of eviction under S. 11 (4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for demolition and reconstruction of the demised premises against the tenant George son of Verkey. The Court ultimately decreed eviction in 1976, subject to the condition that the landlady should reconstruct the building after surrender of vacant possession by the tenant. Though the tenant had surrendered vacant possession on 21/09/1976 and the building was demolished, yet the landlady did not take any steps for reconstruction. The tenant was constrained to file a petition to direct the landlady to construct the building, but yielded to no result except prolongation. Thereafter the landladys son was set up to file O. S. No. 740 of 1977 in the District Munsif Court for an injunction restraining her from reconstruction. Finding it a collusive one, the suit was dismissed on 9/10/1980 and the landlady was directed to construct the building within six months. Even then she moved little in that direction, despite repeated extensions of time. On 17/10/1989 the Rent Controller imposed on her a fine of Rs. 500. 00 for her obstinance in not reconstructing the building. She filed C. R. P. No. 2576 of 1990 and the tenant C. R. P. No. 115 of 1991 in the High Court.

( 2 ) ON the submissions made by her counsel by order dated 23/01/1991 both parties were directed to appear before the concerned officer in the Municipality to sort out the differences to get the plan approved for reconstruction. By order dated 5/02/1991 the Court directed the Municipality, when it was reported that the Municipality was prolonging to grant sanction, to submit to the court, the omissions in the plan or, defects therein. It may be mentioned here that the son of the landlady is a Councillor in that Corporation representing that area. The landlady had made a submission to the court that she was not proposing to make any construction along with lane or put up any structure therein or to block the passage. Accordingly on 20/02/1991 the Court directed the Municipality to sanction the plan and to monitor the construction whether being proceeded in accordance with the sanctioned plan and in case of any dispute it could be sorted out. In spite of these further orders the Municipality adopted dilatory methods and so on 28/02/1991 by order dated 4/03/1991, the court directed the Municipality to make available to the court the relevant files, so that the court itself would scrutinise the plan and give proper directions in that behalf. The court also directed to give sanctioned plan to the counsel for the landlady and a copy to the tenant. Ultimately the landlady was permitted to proceed with the construction on 7/03/1991. The High Court closed the matter after the sanction was granted by the Municipality furnishing a copy of the sanctioned plan to the tenant. Thereafter a stranger obviously set up by the landlady, filed O. P. No. 5227 of 1977 to put hurdles for construction seeking to quash the plan, to which the tenant was not made a party, but on being impleaded and brought to the notice of the District Munsif all the facts, on 7/06/1991 the O. P. was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE landlady filed an application for extension of time and by order dated 27/08/1991 the court refused to enlarge the time for reconstruction. Even then the landlady did not take any action. Therefore, by order dated December 1991 the High Court permitted the tenant to carry on construction in accordance with the plan approved by the Municipality. When it was objected further direction was given on Decem 28/12/1991 granting police protection to the tenant to