SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, M.R. ANITHA, JJ.
V.M. Abdulla Koya S/o Usman – Petitioner
Versus
Thoppil Imbichaminabi D/o K.V. Mamukoya Haji – Respondent
O.P. (RC) No. 33 of 2021
Decided On : 09-08-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: V.T. Madhavanunni, V.A. Satheesh, M.S. Vineeth, M. Vivek Rabindranath.

Point of Law: Arrears of rent - In order to contest an application for eviction before the Rent Control Court or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act against any order made on such application, such a tenant is bound to pay or deposit the arrears of fair rent already fixed by the court in a proceedings between the parties, under Section 5(1) of the Act. The liability of the tenant under Section 12(1) of the Act to pay or deposit the arrears of rent admitted by him will arise only in an application for eviction filed under Section 11 of the Act or in an appeal preferred under Section 18 of the Act, against any order made on such application.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 12, 18 12, 5 (1) 11(2)(b), 11(4) - Tenant challenged - landlord in possession - Whether any interference is warranted on order of Rent Control Appellate Authority, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India - Whether Section 12(1) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act casts an obligation on tenant to pay admitted arrears of rent in order to contest an appeal filed against an order under Section 12(3), which is to effect of stoppage of proceedings and directing tenant to put landlord in possession of premises, a Full Bench Court held that, Section 12(1) of Act provides such an obligation only in case of an application under Section 11 or in case of an appeal.

Finding of the Court:

Rent Control Appellate Authority committed manifest error, and reasoning of said Authority in impugned order is patently erroneous and illegal, which warrants interference of Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India - Rent Control Appellate Authority, under Section 18 of Act, challenging judgment of Rent Control Court in fixing fair rent under Section 5, since it is not an appeal filed against any order passed by Rent Control Court on an application for eviction made by landlord under Section 11 of Act - court matter, conclusion is irresistible that, while entertaining - Order of Appellate Authority acceptinge statement of arrears of rent filed by tenant based on monthly contract rent of and his consequential discharge from liability is illegal and unsustainable - Ratio decidendi in Williams Daniel is that, expression ’arrears of rent admitted’ in Section 12 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, when read in light of scheme of Act and provisions under Section 5 for fixing fair rent, could only be construed as rent incapable of being disputed or denied by tenant - A tenant bound by an order fixing fair rent under Section 5(1) of Act, cannot contend that he is not liable under Section 12 to deposit fair rent greater than contract rent agreed to between parties, adjudged by court nor can a landlord similarly contend that he is entitled to contract rent larger than the fair rent adjudged by court.

Result: Petition is Allowed

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P. No. 193 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff-II), Kozhikode, a petition filed by the respondent herein-landlord, under Section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 for fixation of fair rent of the petition schedule shop room from Rs. 475/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Rent Control Court, by the judgment dated 28.02.2019 fixed the fair rent of the shop room as Rs. 1,800/- per month, with effect from the date of petition, with 10% increase in every three years.

2. The tenant challenged the judgment of the Rent Control Court by filing R.C.A. No. 85 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (1st Additional District Judge), Kozhikode, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. In that appeal, the landlord filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020, invoking the provisions under Section 12(1) and (3) of the Act, seeking an order directing the appellant-tenant to deposit enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- per month, for the period from 10.12.2012 onwards, till date, and continues to deposit the same till the disposal of the appeal, failing which, to dismiss that appeal and put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule shop room. The affidavit dated 10.11.20120 of the landlord, filed in support of I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in R.C.A. No. 85 of 2019, is marked as Ext.P1.

3. The tenant filed Ext.P2 objection dated 22.12.2020 in I.A. No. 1 of 2020, raising a specific contention that the provisions under Section 12 of the Act has no application in an appeal filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Act, challenging the judgment of the Rent Control Court fixing fair rent under Section 5. The Rent Control Court repelled that contention, relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Williams Daniel vs. Jose, 2019 (5) KHC 205 : 2019 (4) KLT 464 : ILR 2019 (4) Kerala 447. By the order dated 07.01.2021, the Appellate Authority allowed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 and directed the tenant to pay arrears of rent at the rate fixed by the Rent Control Court, in respect of the petition schedule shop room, at the rate of Rs. 1,800/- per month (with effect from 10.12.2012), with 10% increase in every three years, up to the date of appeal, within a period of five weeks from 07.01.2021, the date of the order, and continues to pay or deposit arrears of rent which may subsequently become due in respect of that shop room, until the termination of proceedings before the Appellate Authority, within a period of three weeks from the dates on which the rent become due. Challenging the said order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner-tenant is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. On 26.02.2021, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent. This Court granted an interim order staying Ext.P3 order dated 07.01.2021 of the Appellate Authority in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in R.C.A. No. 85 of 2019, for a period of four months. The said interim order is still in force, in view of the order of the Full Bench of this Court in the Suo Motu Proceedings, i.e. W.P. (C) No. 11316 of 2021, extending the period of limitation, operation of interim orders, etc.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent-landlord.

6. The issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 07.01.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in R.C.A. No. 85 of 2019, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with payment or deposit of rent

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top