IMPORTANT POINTS
Tenants occupying buildings covered by the Act, for which fair rent was not fixed, enjoy the liberty of depositing arrears of rent and continue to deposit monthly rent at the rate admitted by him. But, once adjudication as to the rate of fair rent in respect of a building has been done by a competent Rent Control Court in a properly instituted proceedings between the landlord and tenant, the tenant's liberty to cling on to the admitted arrears comes to an end.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. ANILKUMAR, J.

Whether the expression “arrears of rent admitted” in Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965(for short 'the Act') could be interpreted to include the fair rent fixed in a rent control proceeding under Section 5(1) of the Act also, apart from the contractual rent agreed to between the parties, is the short question that arises for consideration in this proceeding.

2. This question was answered in the negative by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in R.C.A.No.59 of 2012, accepting the tenant's contention that admitted arrears of rent could only mean contractual rent agreed to between parties. Consequently, I.A.No.4801 of 2018 filed by the tenant, seeking permission to deposit arrears of contractual rent in purported compliance with an earlier order dated 14.8.2018 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur under Section 12(3) of the Act in I.A.No.761 of 2018 was allowed and the liability of the tenant was declared as discharged. On the same day, I.A. No.4637 of 2018 again filed by the landlord for initiating summary eviction under Section 12(3) for non deposit of arrears of fair rent as directed, was also dismissed.

3. Both the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority are under challenge in this proceedings instituted by the landlord.

4. The petitioner claimed to be the landlord of tenanted shop room and filed R.C.P. No.39 of 2008 for eviction of the respondent under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The respondent denied having any landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner and he claimed to be the tenant under the previous landlord paying monthly rent of Rs.1,400/-. According to him, during the currency of tenancy, he entered into an oral agreement for sale with the previous owner and consequently, his liability to pay rent came to an end. He instituted O.S. No.955 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Thrissur for specific performance of oral agreement for sale; but it was dismissed. The dismissal is, however, under challenge in R.F.A.No.106 of 2009 filed by him before this Court and the appeal is still pending. The petitioner secured an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act in R.C.P. No.39 of 2008 and the same continues to be under challenge before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in R.C.A. No.59 of 2012.

5. The petitioner filed I.A. No.761 of 2018 on 14.08.2018 in R.C.A.59 of 2012 under Section 12(3) of the Act for an order directing the respondent to deposit the arrears of fair rent with effect from 01.09.2006 as fixed by the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation between parties and for consequential enforcement of the order in the event of tenant committing breach of direction. Prior to the institution of R.C.P. No.39 of 2008, the petitioner had already instituted before the same court R.C.P. 81 of 2006 for eviction of respondent under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act and also for fixation of fair rent of the shop room under Section 5(1). The respondent disputed the landlord-tenant relationship as well as the proposed fair rent as being exorbitant. Overruling the contentions raised by the respondent, the Rent Control Court, Thrissur fixed fair rent and ordered eviction of the respondent under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act.

6. Both parties took separate appeals challenging the order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. R.C.A. No.72 of 2010 filed by the respondent was dismissed, confirming the finding of the court below that parties were landlord and tenant. R.C.A. 88 of 2010 filed by the petitioner was allowed, enhancing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Court. The orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority were again challenged and the revisional court dismissed R.C.R. No.225 and 226 of 2018 filed by the parties confirming the common order dated 19.03.2018. The revisional order was also later confirmed on 23.07.2018 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No.30773-30774/2018 dismissin