IMPORTANT POINTS
It is true that an appeal under Section 18 lies not only against a final order under Section 11, but also against an order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing an application to set aside the ex-parte order passed under Section 11. Appeal under Section 18 lies against certain other orders passed by the Rent Control Court as well. Though an appeal under Section 18 lies against a variety of orders passed by the Rent Control Court, the appeal which is referred under Section 12 (1), is only an appeal against an order under Section 11. Therefore in other appeals, no order can be passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 12 of the Act, is the conclusion arrived.

ORDER :

Abdul Rehim, J.

A Division Bench of this court, through its order dated 20-03-2018, referred the above case to be heard by a Full Bench, on the question regarding maintainability of an application filed under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in an appeal filed against an order passed under Section 12 (3) of the Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the landlord instituted a Rent Control Petition seeking eviction of the tenant, on the grounds enumerated under Sections 11 (2) (b), 11 (3) and 11 (4) (v) of the Act. Tenant resisted the petition by filing objections. During pendency of the Rent Control Petition, the landlord filed an interim application under Section 12 of the Act, seeking direction against the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court passed an order under Section 12 (1) directing the tenant to pay the admitted arrears, within the date stipulated there under. The tenant failed to make deposit / payment of the admitted arrears. The landlord thereupon filed another application seeking orders under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. The said application was allowed and the Rent Control Court stopped all further proceedings before it directed the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. The tenant challenged the said order in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In the appeal, the landlord filed an interim application seeking order directing the appellant / tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The Appellate Authority allowed the said application and the tenant was directed to deposit the admitted arrears, within one month. Since the tenant failed to comply with the direction, the Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal passing an order as follows;

“Appellant directed to put respondent in possession of the petition schedule building within one month as the direction in the order dated 09-03-2017 in IA No.5136/2016isnotcomplied.”

The said order is under challenge in the above Rent Control Revision Petition, filed under Section 20 of the Act.

3. The Revision Petitioner / tenant contended that the application filed by the landlord before the Appellate Authority under Section 12 of the Act was not maintainable since the appeal was filed against an order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12 (3) of the Act. In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Sulaiman Sahib V. Mohemmed Moosa (2003 (2) KLT 1058) and in Mohammed Shameer V. Ashokan (2015 (1) KLT 396). It was contended that the wordings in Section 12 (1), “an appeal under Section 18 against any order made by the rent control court on the application …....” (emphasis supplied) refers only to an application for eviction filed under Section 11 of the Act, and therefore Section 12 (1) would not apply to an appeal arising from any other order passed by the Rent Control Court, including an order passed under Section 12 (3) of the Act. Therefore it is argued that, in the case at hand, the application filed by the landlord before the Appellate Authority under Section 12 of the Act, was not maintainable.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / landlord contended that, the question as to whether an application under Section 12 is maintainable in an appeal filed from an order passed under Section 12 (3) of the Act, did not directly arise for consideration in the decisions cited above. In both the decisions cited above the appeals were filed from ex-parte orders of eviction passed under Section 11 of the Act and not from any order passed under Section 12 (3). It was argued that, the object behind the enactment of Section 12 is to require the tenant to deposit, during pendency of the proceedings, the admitted arrears of rent and to continue to pay the rent which may subsequently fall due in respect of the demised premise