IMPORTANT POINTS
When a judicial officer is conferred with separate jurisdictions, the nature of jurisdiction exercised by him is determined by what is invoked by the party who moves the jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

Faced with an adverse order of eviction more than a decade ago, this case reflects the length to which legal proceedings can be dragged on before a landlord can enjoy the fruits of an order of eviction. Of course, the tenants cannot be blamed, for the contentions raised, are all legal in nature and within their rights too.

2. A brief sketch of the sequence of events will reveal the meaning of the opening remarks of this judgment. In a line building, occupied by thirteen tenants, eleven Rent Control Petitions, seeking eviction of the respective tenants were filed by the landlord in the year 1998. Two of the tenants had volunteered to vacate the building. Believing their words proceedings were not initiated against them.

3. The ground raised for eviction was under reconstruction and bona fide need of the landlord. Appellate Authority allowed the eviction petition. Finally, when the matter reached this Court while confirming the orders of eviction, five conditions were imposed by judgment dated 19.8.2009 in R.C.R. No.334 of 2005 and connected cases. For easier reference, the conditions imposed are extracted below:

“(1) The tenants are granted time upto 28.2.2010 to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlords on condition that each one of the revision petitioners shall file separate affidavits before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court as the case may be, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises on or before the said date within 3 weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(2) The revision petitioners shall pay all arrears of rent due in respect of the premises to the landlords and shall continue to pay the future rent in respect of the premises regularly till they surrender vacant possession thereof.

(3) The landlords shall produce the approved plan and building permit in respect of the proposed construction before the Execution Court for perusal before the time fixed for the tenants to vacate the premises.

(4) The Execution Court shall ensure that the tenants in occupation of the shop rooms from where the business of 'Prakruthi Stores' and 'Bhagavathy Textiles' are being conducted are also vacated before 28.2.2010.

(5) Delivery warrants shall be issued by the execution court for compelling the eviction of these revision petitioners only after conditions 3 and 4 above are complied with.”

4. Prakruthi Stores and Bhagavathy Textiles mentioned in condition no. (4) above are the tenants who had agreed to vacate on their own. Two days prior to 28.2.2010, the tenants of Prakruthi Stores and Bhagavathy Textiles informed that they are not ready to vacate on their own. Confronted with such a situation, the landlord preferred R.C.P. No.4 of 2010 and R.C.P. No.5 of 2010 to evict those two tenants. in view of the change of stance by the two tenants as stated above, the eleven tenants did not surrender vacant possession of the buildings under their occupation taking the benefit of condition no.(5) above.

5. While the eviction petitions against Prakruthi Stores and Bhagavathy Textiles were pending, the landlord preferred execution petitions to evict the other tenants against whom orders of eviction had already been passed. However, the execution court found that tenants cannot be evicted before evicting the tenants in Prakruthi Stores and Bhagavathy Textiles and closed the execution petition with a right to revive the same after evicting the aforesaid 2 tenants. Later, R.C.P. No. 4 of 2010 and R.C.P. No. 5 of 2010 were allowed and the tenants of Prakruthi Stores and Bhagavathy Textiles were finally evicted, after appeals and revision petitions filed by those tenants ended in dismissal.

6. Thereafter, the execution petitions against the eleven tenants were revived, on the application of the landlord, and 8 out of the 11 tenants were evicted. The tenants in R.C.P.No.30 of 1998, R.C.P.No.22 of 1998, and R.C.P. No.34 of 1998 refused to vacate the building. They filed petiti