The need for a liberal construction of rent control legislation to protect the interests of tenants and the validity of an appeal under S.12 and S.18 of the Rent Control Act.

Malimath, CJ.

This writ petition is filed by the tenants challenging the decision of the District Judge of Tellicherry in R.C.R.P.No. 40 of 1988 rendered under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which has come before us on a reference made by Justice Chettur Sankaran Nair on the ground that the view expressed by the learned single judge of this Court in the case reported in 1989(2) KLT 549) between Mohammed Kunju v. Rajamma appears to go against the tenor of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1975 KLT 542 between C.V. Xavier and others v. Francis Leonard Pappali. The relevant facts necessary for a disposal of this case may briefly be stated as follows:

2. The first respondent is the landlord and the first petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the tenants under him, of the premises in question which is used for non-residential purposes. The landlord made an application for eviction of the tenants on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide requirement for personal occupation, subletting and ceasing to occupy the premises. The tenants resisted the application and denied all the allegations of the landlord. The Rent Control Court made an order as per Ext.P1 dated 14-1-1987 allowing the application for eviction under S.ll(3) of the Act, on the ground of bona fide requirement for use of the landlord's son. The application of the landlord on other grounds was rejected.

3. The tenants took up the matter by way of appeal under S.18 of the Act to * the Court of the Subordinate judge at payyannur. The landlord also filed his cross-objections to the extent his application was rejected in respect of other grounds. The appellate Authority by its order dated 13-1-1988 allowed the tenants' appeal and dismissed the cross-objections of the landlord. Thus the landlord's application for eviction stood dismissed.

4. The landlord challenged the aforesaid decision before the Court of the District Judge at Tellicherry under S.20 of the Act. The District Judge by his order Ext.P3 dated 9-ll-1989, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority. The District Judge has taken the view that the tenants having deposited the rent for the months of July, August, September and October only on 27-10-1987 after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation prescribed for preferring the appeal, the appeal filed by the tenants was incompetent, the condition precedent prescribed by sub-section (1) ofS.12of the Act of paying or depositing all the admitted arrears of rent not having been satisfied in this case. The learned District Judge having come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the tenants was not maintainable, did not consider it necessary to examine the case on merits.

It is the said decision of the District Judge that is challenged by the tenant and his two brothers in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

5. The principal question for examination in this writ petition is as to whether the view taken by the learned District Judge that the appeal of the tenant was not competent on the ground that admitted arrears of rent was not paid or deposited on or before the date of preferring the appeal is right or not.

6. The appeal was filed in this case before the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Rent Control Court under S.18 of the Act. The appeal, it is not disputed, was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The contention on behalf of the landlord is that it is not enough for maintaining the appeal to satisfy the conditions prescribed by S.18, which is the provision, which confers the right of appeal against the orders of the Rent Control Court. It is his case that S.12 of the Act imposes a condition precedent, which has to be fulfilled before an appeal is filed under S.18 of the Act. That condition, according to the learned counsel for the landlord, is paying or depositing all th