The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of provisions related to eviction and deposit of arrears of rent under The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, particularly S.11, S.23(1)(i), and S.14.

K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.

1. The additional revision petitioners (impleaded on the death of the tenant, the revision petitioner) are the legal representatives of the tenant who was evicted from the shop building on 21-11-1978 in execution of the ex parte order in R.C.P. 103 of 1978 before the Rent Controller, Cannanore.

2. Facts relevant and requisite to decide the dispute lie in a narrow compass. The landlady, the first respondent filed R.C.P. 103 of 1978 and obtained an ex parte order of eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. This ex parte order was passed on 11-8-1978. This order had given the petitioner one months' time to deposit the arrears of rent. On his coming to know of the ex parte order, the tenant filed I. A. 2225/1978 to set aside that order. This application was allowed on condition that the tenant should deposit the arrears of rent on or before 25-9-1978. The tenant failed to comply with that order and deposit the arrears of rent within the stipulated period although he subsequently deposited the entire arrears of rent on 27-9-1978. He thereafter filed two petitions. I. A. 2473/78 for extension of time by two weeks to comply with the directions contained in the order in I. A. 2225/1978 and / I. A. 2573/78 under S.23(1)(i) of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for short, The Rent Control Act, to enlarge the time for deposit of arrears of rent as per the ex parte order, by three months. The Rent Controller dismissed both petitions, I. A. 2473/78 and 2573/78 and those orders were confirmed in appeal. (See the judgments in R.C.A. 135 and 136 of 1978; R.C.A. 135 against the order in I. A. 2573/78 and R C.A. 136 against the order in I. A. 2473/78). The tenant thereupon filed two revisions before the District Court, Tellicherry as R.C.R.P. 58/80 challenging the order of the appellate court dismissing R.C.A. 136/78 against the order in T A. 2473/78 and R.C.R.P. 59/80 against the order dismissing the appeal, R.C.A. 135/78 challenging the order in I. A. 2573/78 refusing to enlarge the time. The District Court dismissed R.C.R.P 58/80 on the ground that the time fixed in the order allowing the petition to set aside the ex parte order namely I. A. 2225/78 had worked itself out. The District Court however, allowed R.C.R.P. 59/80. That means the prayer in I. A. 2573/78 to enlarge the time by three months for deposit of the arrears of rent while passing the ex parte order, was granted.

3. Aggrieved by the latter order, the landlady filed C.R.P. 2860/81 before this court wherein she contended that the amount deposited on 27-9-1978 was insufficient and that the order enlarging the time originally fixed by three months, was wrong. This court dismissed the revision by order dated 4th day of July, 1985. Relevant portion therefrom is extracted hereunder: -

"............The revisional authority acted correctly in dealing with and disposing of I. A. 2573/1978 for enabling him to deposit any further amount in the event of deficiency being noted. It is, however, to be noted that the order of 6-9-1978 only directed the deposit of "rent arrears". Whether under the Act any further amount was really due as on 27-9-1978 is not the question. The question is what exactly was the obligation as regards deposit under the order dated 6-9-1978 only the rent arrears, is the amount to be deposited under the terms of the order dated 6-9-1978. There cannot be any doubt that the sum of Rs. 7,600/- deposited on 27-9-1978 was much in excess of the rent arrears on that day".

(emphasis supplied)

4. Aggrieved by the order of this court, the landlady filed S.L.P 1553/1985 before the Supreme Court which however was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 4-4-1988. The order of this court in the revision thus has become final.

5. The order of this court in the revision confirming the order of the District Court in R.C.R.P. 59/80, must be held to be the executable order, in view of the Division Bench ruling of this court in Chandrika