The court emphasized that equity and discretion in granting relief must be balanced with the principles of natural justice and morality, and that tenants seeking equitable relief must have justice on their side and come with clean hands.

G.H. Guttal, J.

1. Both these petitions are by the tenant against whom a decree for eviction under S.11(2)(b) and (c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was made and finally confirmed by this Court in C. R. P. No. 1669 of 1985 on 30-7-1991. In this order the petitioner is referred to as the "tenant" and the respondents as the "landlord". In C. M. P. No. 2631 of 1991 the tenant prays that he be granted six months time from 30-8-1991 to deposit the arrears of rent nearing a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. C. M. P. No. 2631/1991 was argued in extenso by counsel for both sides on 30-9-1991. The submission of Mr. Warrier was that, after this Court dismissed the revision petition by the tenant without granting any time for payment of the arrears of rent, there is no jurisdiction in this Court to grant time beyond what is statutorily permitted. I reserved the judgment. But before I could pronounce the order the petitioner took out C. M. P. No. 3121 of 1991 after hurriedly depositing in the trial court, without the permission of any court, a sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- towards the arrears of rent. In this C M. P. he prays that the delay of 35 days in depositing the arrears of rent in accordance with the order of the Appellate Court in R. C. A. No. 122 of 1980 as confirmed by, this Court in C. R. P. No. 1669 of 1985 be condoned. This judgment will dispose off both the petitions.

2. A brief history of this litigation may be outlined.

The landlords filed O. S. No. 29 of 1974 and O. S. No. 227 of 1974 for arrears of rent, interest on the arrears and sum of Rs. 11963.80 towards the reimbursement of the corporation tax paid by the landlords but payable by the tenants. Under two lease deeds.

(a) the rent was fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per month Rs. 800/- for eastern building and Rs. 700/- for the western building;

(b) interest at 6% per annum was payable by the tenant on the arrears;

and

(c) taxes were payable by the tenant.

The defence of the tenant was

(a) there was no agreement of rent;

(b) the building was renovated and reconstructed. It was agreed that the landlords will spend Rs. 50,000/- The balance of the expenses on account of renovation and construction was to be paid by way of loan by the tenants to the landlords. According to the tenants in consideration of this, the rent was agreed to be Rs. 1,000- p.m. and not Rs. 1,500/-.

(c) The landlords spent Rs. 54, 067/- and the tenants advanced Rs. 1,05,319.61. A statement of account was made. It was agreed that the tenants had spent Rs. 1,16,076.78 and the landlords spent Rs. 54,067/-. Both are alleged to have signed the accounts.

The Rent Control Court accepted the tenant's case and dismissed the suits. Two appeals being A. S. Nos. 234 and 235 of 1980 were filed. The landlords also filed R. C. P. No. 33 of 1974 in the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, for eviction on account of arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. Against this R. C. A. No. 122 of 1988 was filed by the landlords. The appeal was allowed and decree for eviction made.

Finally C. R. P. No. 1669 of 1985 by the tenant and the two appeals being Appeal Nos. 234 and 235 of 1980 by the landlords were heard by Shamsuddin, J. The appeals were allowed and the tenant's C. R. P. No. 1669 of 1985 was dismissed by a common judgment dated 30th July, 19.91. The order of the Appellate Court in Rent Control Appeal No 122 of 1988 confirmed by Shamsuddin, J. in C. R. P. No. 1669 of 1985 reads thus:

"In the result the Rent Control Appeal is allowed with costs. The order impugned is set aside. R. C. P. 33/74 shall stand allowed A under S.11(2)(b) of Act 2/65. If the arrears of rent, that is to say, Rs. 73,005.65 and Rs. 64,061.40 together with costs throughout as well as the subsequent rent at the rate of Rs. 1, 500/- per month that accrued due from 31-7-1973 upto this date, after deducting the payments already made during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition and this appeal, with 6% interest there