Failure to comply with court's payment conditions in eviction matters justifies dismissal of petitions.

JUDGMENT

Ajithkumar, J.

This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the revision petitioner in RCRP No.5 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Thrissur. That RCRP was filed challenging the order of the Execution Court (Principal Munsiff), Thrissur, in E.A.No.856 of 2010 in E.P.No.62 of 2010 in R.C.P.No.67 of 2008. The petitioner claimed the right to continue in the petition schedule building saying that he has independent right of tenancy with respect to the petition schedule building. On dismissing that claim application, the said RCRP was filed, which was eventually dismissed for default. Thereafter, the Execution Court ordered eviction. At that time, the revision petitioner filed I.A.Nos.3962 and 3963 of 2016 seeking to condone the delay of 437 days and to restore the said revision petition on file. The Revisional Court allowed I.A.No.3963 of 2016 on the condition of deposit of entire admitted arrears of rent within 15 days as per order dated 14.12.2018 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Thrissur.

However, that interlocutory application happened to be dismissed since arrears of rent was not paid. Consequently, I.A.No.3963 of 2016 was also dismissed. RCRP No.5 of 2011 thereby stood dismissed as barred by the law of limitation. Challenging the said orders, Exts.P5 and P6, the petitioner filed this Original Petition.

2. On 09.01.2020, this Court ordered notice to the 1st respondent by Special Messenger and notice to the 2nd respondent was dispensed for the time being. The delivery of the petition schedule building was deferred on the condition of depositing Rs.5 lakhs on or before 20.01.2020.

3. The petitioner did not make payment of the said amount. On 24.11.2021, this court after hearing both sides passed the following order:-

“On 16.11.2021, when this original petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-landlord submitted that the total arrears of rent in respect of the building in question comes to Rs.81,42,860/-.

The tenant of the building is the 2nd respondent company and now the petitioner obstructed the delivery by filing claim petition as E.A.No.856 of 2010 in E.P.No.62 of 2010 in R.C.P.No.67 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Thrissur, invoking the provisions under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner has not complied with the condition stipulated in the order of this Court dated 09.01.2020 to remit Rs.5,00,000/- on or before20.01.2020.

During the course of arguments the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is conducting a clinic by name, 'Sun Medical Services', in the premises in question. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has made available for the perusal of this Court a photograph of the building in question, in which an institution by name, Sun Medical Centre, a Multi Speciality Clinic, is functioning. The learned counsel for the respondent to hand over a copy of those photographs to the learned Government Pleader, who shall get a report from the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur as to whether the Multi Speciality Clinic in question is functioning after obtaining necessary license/ permission/consent from the statutory authorities.”

4. As directed, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrissur, submitted a report, which reads,-

“On the physical verification of the establishment, found that the establishment if function in multi storied building named Oriental Tower. The establishment in question occupied 3 floors in the building covering an area of about 5000 sq.ft. in total. They are providing service of different pathological and screening tests like blood test, urine