IMPORTANT POINTS
When the court had passed an order directing a party before it to do a particular thing, in default of which certain consequence is to follow, if the party is to be relieved of the consequences of any non-compliance of that order, he has to make a specific motion thereof showing sufficient cause for his non-compliance of the order and making appropriate prayer therein. Otherwise the order would work itself out and the default to comply with it will bring the appointed consequences on the tenant. In the year 1975, in C.V. Xavier and others V. Francis Leonard Pallali (supra) another Division Bench of this court found that, the opportunity to be afforded to show 'sufficient cause' must be reasonable and real and is not an empty formality to be observed by the court.

ORDER :

Abdul Rehim, J.

Through an order of reference passed by a Division Bench of this court on 04-12-2015, the above Rent Control Revision Petition is posted for consideration of a Full Bench, for a decision on the issue, whether the Rent Control Court was bound to issue notice to the tenant calling upon him to show sufficient cause as to why further proceedings before that court shall not be stopped and an order of eviction passed, under Section 12 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

2. Brief facts involved are that, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and bonafide need of the tenanted premises for own occupation, under Section 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Act. During pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, the landlord filed an interim application under Section 12 of the Act praying for an order directing the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent till date, and for continued payment of the rent without default till the final disposal of the rent control petition. The tenant did not file any counter statement / affidavit resisting the application. On 01-11-2014, the Rent Control Court passed an order under Sub-Sections (1) of Section 12, directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent at the admitted rate, within a period of 4 weeks. The interim application was directed to be posted on 15-12-2014 for reporting about the payment. But the tenant filed an application seeking further time of 15 days for depositing the arrears, under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Rent Control Court allowed the said application and directed payment of the arrears on or before 01-01-2015. On 01-01-2015 the tenant submitted that, an application seeking further enlargement of time for two weeks has been filed. But there was no such application available on record. However, based on the oral submission of the counsel for the tenant, the Rent Control Court again granted two weeks time from 05-01-2015 and directed to post the case on 20-01-2015, for verification of the payment. The tenant filed yet another interim application seeking further time of 10 days for making the payment. The said interim application was dismissed by the Rent Control Court on 20-01-2015 and the case was adjourned to 24-01-2015. On that day, having found that the tenant had not paid or deposited the arrears of rent, the Rent Control Court passed an order under Section 12 (3), stopping further proceedings in the rent control petition and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The tenant attempted an appeal from the said order before the Appellate Authority, which was unsuccessful. It is against the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal, that the present Revision Petition is filed.

3. On behalf of the Revision Petitioner / tenant, the order of the Rent Control Court, passed under Section 12, (3) of the Act was assailed on the ground that, there occurred failure to comply with the stipulations in sub-section (3) of Section 12 in so far as the tenant was not provided with an opportunity to show cause why further proceedings shall not be stopped in the rent control petition and an order of eviction passed. In this regard the Revision Petitioner relied on a Division Bench Decision of this court in Pochappan Narayanan V. Gopalan ((1990 (2) KLT 1). It is held therein that, when the tenant fails to pay or deposit the admitted rent, as directed under sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 12, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is required to ask the tenant to show cause why all further proceedings should not be stopped and an order made directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. When such an opportunity is afforded to the tenant, he is entitled to show if there is any sufficient cause for his failure to pay the amount or to deposit the rent.