Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, P.G. Ajithkumar, JJ.
Manikkoth Shaniba - Appellant
Vs.
Kunnoth Ayisha - Respondent
OP (RC) NO. 110 OF 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2022
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Section 11(2)(b) and Section 5 - Eviction of tenant – Arrears of rent and for fixation of fair rent – Interlocutory order – Rent Control Court cannot be directed to consider and dispose of application made by the petitioner-tenant, since the relief sought for in that application, for adjustment of rental advance against the admitted arrears of rent, which is legally impermissible. [Para 20]
Finding of the Court:
Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of Constitution of India – Section 12 of the Act deals with payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. As per Section 12(1), no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, shall be entitled to – Contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that Section, or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority – Advance in excess of one month's rent. Therefore, the contention of the tenant that, the security amount deposited by him, which is still with the landlord, has to be adjusted towards admitted arrears of rent payable under Section 12(1) of the Act, and as such he is not liable to deposit the admitted arrears of rent as per Ext.P4 order of the Rent Control Courtis untenable.
Result: Original petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.9 of 2020 on the file of the Rent control Court (Munsiff), Nadapuram, which is one filed by the respondent herein-landlady under Section 11(2)(b) and Section 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and for fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule shop room. The petitioner-tenant entered appearance and filed counter. The landlady filed I.A.No.3 of 2021, an application under Section 12(1) of the Act, seeking an order directing the tenant to deposit admitted arrears of rent. In that application, the tenant filed counter. Thereafter, the Rent Control Court passed Ext.P3 order dated 09.12.2021, under Section 12(1) of the Act, read with Section 12(2), whereby the tenant was directed to pay admitted arrears of rent in respect of the petition schedule shop room at the rate of Rs.11,500/- per month from August, 2019 in a lump sum on or before four weeks from the date of that order. The tenant was further directed to pay the rent of the building for the subsequent period, within 15 days from the due date.
2. Challenging Ext.P3 order of the Rent Control Court, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.7 of 2022 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge), Vadakara. In Ext.P4 order dated 02.04.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in R.C.A.No.7 of 2022, the Appellate Authority found that the R.C.A.No.7 of 2022 is not maintainable since the order under challenge is an order under Section 12(1) of the Act, which is not appealable. The tenant filed Ext.P5 interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.6 of 2022, before the Rent Control Court, seeking an order to adjust the advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the arrears of rent. Thereafter, the tenant filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P3 order dated 09.12.2021 of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Nadapuram in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in R.C.P.No.9 of 2020 and to direct the said court to decide Ext.P5 interlocutory application in accordance with law.
3. On 03.06.2022, when this original petition came up for consideration, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent through her counsel before the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram, where R.C.P.No.9 of 2020 is pending consideration.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-landlady.
5. The issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P3 order dated 09.12.2021 of the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in R.C.P.No.9 of 2020 and whether the petitioner-tenant is entitled for the order directing the Rent Control Court to decide Ext.P5 petition in accordance with law.
6. Ext.P3 order is one issued by the Rent Control Court in exercise of its powers under Section 12(1), read with Section 12(2) of the Act, whereby the tenant is directed to pay admitted arrears of rent to the landlady within the time limit stipulated therein. Before the Rent Control Court and also before this Court, the stand taken by the tenant is that the landlady is having with her Rs.4,00,000/- paid by the tenant towards security deposit, which has to be adjusted against the admitted arrears of rent, which comes to Rs.3,79,500/-.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlady would contend that the security amount is higher than Rs.4,00,000/-, which cannot be adjusted towards admitted arrears of rent. Further, Ext.P3 order passed by the Rent Control Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 12(1) of the Act, warrants no interference in this original petition.
8. Section 12 of the Act deals with payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. As per Section 12(1), no tenant against whom an application for eviction
When Section 8(1) of the Act is not in Statute book, as it was declared ultra vires, a tenant is entitled to contend that the landlord is not entitled to retain the advance in excess of one month's r....
In exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Point of Law : High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal.
Even assuming that for purpose of execution an order under Section 12(3) of Act can be equated with and treated as same, as one under Section 11 of Act, the consequence enjoined by an order under Sec....
Tenants must deposit admitted rent during eviction proceedings under crisis; failure leads to automatic eviction unless sufficient cause is shown.
Point of Law : Only thing is that the opportunity to be afforded to the tenant to show sufficient cause with respect to the failure to pay or deposit rent, as directed in Section 12(1) and (2), withi....
Point of Law - Power to do justice between the parties and to dispose of a Rent Control Petition in accordance with law, would certainly confer certain inherent powers on the Rent Control Court.
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 t....
High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jur....
Point of Law : Eviction or tenancy matters governed by special Statutes and where the tenant enjoys statutory protection, only the specified Court has been conferred jurisdiction.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
