Point of Law: Stay of criminal proceedings by the High Courts should not be considered as an incentive to cause delay in the proceedings; that order granting stay or extending it must be a speaking order and stay not to operate long; that delay in a criminal trial has deleterious effect on the administration of justice in which the society has a vital interest; and that delay in trials affects the faith in Rule of Law and efficacy of the legal system.

ORDER :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

I.A.No.1 of 2022

The petitioner filed R.C.Rev.No.359 of 2016, under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2016 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara in R.C.A.No.55 of 2015, an appeal filed under Section 18(1)(b) of the said Act against the order dated 16.02.2015 of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vatakara in R.C.P.No.18 of 2014. The respondents herein-landlords, filed the said R.C.P. against the petitioner herein-tenant, under Section 11(3) of the Act, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room. The bona fide need projected in the R.C.P was that of the 5th respondent herein, who was examined as PW1, to start a churidar ready-made business and stitching unit in the petition schedule shop room.

2. The Rent Control Court found that the need projected in the R.C.P for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide; the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act has no application; and the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Before the Rent Control Court, the tenant contended that, in view of the guidelines and norms laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad v. Atmaram Chauhan [(2011) 7 SCC 755], if present and prevalent market rent assessed and fixed between the parties is paid by the tenant then landlord shall not be entitled to bring any action for eviction against such a tenant at least for a period of 5 years. Thus for a period of 5 years the tenant shall enjoy immunity from being evicted from the tenanted premises. The Rent Control Court found that, the fair rent of the petition schedule shop room was fixed as Rs.1,000/- vide Ext.A2 order dated 30.09.2011 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara in R.C.A.No.17 of 2011, arising out of the order of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara in R.C.P.No.30 of 2005. Since the landlords filed R.C.P.No.18 of 2014 on 13.03.2014, within a period of 5 years from the fixation of fair rent, the tenant is entitled to enjoy immunity from being evicted from the tenanted premises for a period of 5 years from the date of fixation of fair rent under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Control Court, by the order dated 16.02.2015, dismissed R.C.P.No.18 of 2014 holding that the landlords are not entitled for an order of eviction as sought for; however made it clear that they are entitled to file petition seeking the same relief after expiration of the period of immunity entitled to the tenant.

3. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara dated 16.02.2015 in R.C.P.No.18 of 2014, the landlords filed R.C.A. No.55 of 2015 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The Appellate Authority, by the judgment dated 08.07.2016, allowed that appeal and the landlords are found entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act and the tenant is directed to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlords. On the question of the immunity of the tenant from being evicted from the tenanted premises, the Appellate Authority found that, as per Ext.A2 order of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.17 of 2011, the fair rent fixed in R.C.P.No.30 of 2005 shall have effect from 11.03.2005, the date of filing of that petition. R.C.P.No.18 of 2014 seeking eviction of the tenant was filed on 13.03.2014, about 9 years after the date of fixation of fair rent. On similar facts, a Division Bench of this Court in Subair and others v. C.P. Kunhami @ Kunjhimariyam and another [(2015) 5 KHC 260] held that, in a case where the petition for fixation of fair rent was filed in 2002 and finally the judgment in appeal was delivered in 2012, the period of 5 years as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammad Ahmad [(2011) 7 SCC 755] would start from 2002, the date of fixation of