JUDGMENT

K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.- The first respondent in OP No. 10288 of 1988, Kerala High Court - hereinafter referred to as the tenant - appeals against the judgment of the High Court dated 27-10-1994. The petitioner in the original petition - hereinafter referred to as the landlord - is the first respondent herein. The statutory authorities and other pro forma respondents in the High Court are the respondents in this civil appeal. The learned Judge of the High Court, by the judgment dated 27-10-1994, in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside the order passed by the District Judge, Palakkad in RCRP No. 6 of 1985 dated 31-7-1986 (Ext. P-3) and restored the order passed by the Rent Control Court and appellate authority rendered in IA No. 764 of 1982 in RCP (OP) No. 141 of 1977 (Ext. P-l) and RCA 68 of 1983 (Ext. P-2). The appellant-tenant was given three months time to surrender the possession of the building in question to the respondent-landlord.

2. This litigation has a chequered history. The appellant is a tenant of a residential building bearing Door No. 22/70 in Sriram Street, Moothanthara, Koppom, Palakkad Taluk under the first respondent-landlord. The appellant took the building on lease at a rent of Rs 20 per mensem from the landlord on 1-8-1972. Alleging that the rent from 1-6-1975 is in arrears, the landlord sent a notice on 22-6-1977 terminating the tenancy and demanding surrender of the building. Subsequently, the landlord filed RCP (OP) No. 141 of 1977 seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 11 (2) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The grounds urged for eviction of the tenant are, default in payment of rent [Section 11(2)] and bona fide requirement of the building for the landlords own occupation [Section 11(3)]. The plea of bona fide requirement for landlords own occupation was found against. However, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act on the ground of default in payment of rent. The court ordered that in case the tenant deposits a sum of Rs 820 as arrears as on 1-11-1978 within one month from the date of the order, i.e., 30-11-1978, the tenant could move an application for vacating the order of eviction. The tenant filed an appeal - RCA No. 8 of 1979 before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, by order dated 26-7-1979, set aside the order passed by the Rent Controller and ordered a remit, directing the Rent Controller to consider the maintainability of the petition. After remit, the Rent Controller passed an order on 22-2-1980 under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act in the following terms:

"In the result, I find that the petitioners claim for recovery of possession under Section 11(3) is unsustainable. But the petitioner is entitled to get recovery of possession since the respondent has defaulted payment of rent. So the respondent is ordered to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building under Section 11(2) within 30 days from today. In case the respondent deposits the sum of Rs 540 which is the arrears of rent due as on 1-2-1980 she will be entitled to apply for getting the order vacated under Section ll{2)(c) of Act 2 of 1965. The respondent is ordered to pay costs of the petitioner including advocates fee which is fixed at Rs 25. The respondent is further ordered to pay interest at 6% per annum on the arrears of Rs 540 from today."

(emphasis supplied)

The appeal, RCA No. 40 of 1980, filed by the tenant before the appellate authority was dismissed on 21-7-1981. Thereafter, the tenant moved the Revisional Authority, District Court, Palghat in RCRP No. 53 of 1981 and the learned District Judge passed the following order on 24-3-1982:

"The tenant shall be free to get the order vacated by making the necessary deposit and application as contemplated in Section 11(2)(c) of Act 2 of 1965 before the Rent Control Court on or before 24-5-1982."

It is nobo