The court emphasized the admissibility of documents, determination of arrears of rent, and the appellate authority's power to modify orders under the Act, highlighting the importance of complying with legal procedures and provisions.

ORDER :

Johnson John, J.

The revision petitioner is the landlord who filed a petition for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('Act, 1965' for short) against the respondent tenant before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam as RCP No. 67 of 2020. During the pendency of the petition, the landlord filed I.A. No. 3 of 2021 under Section 12 of the Act, 1965 seeking a direction to the respondent tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent and the Rent Control Court, as per order dated 14.07.2021, directed the respondent tenant to remit the rent arrears from January, 2019 at the rate of Rs.1,45,000/-per month within thirty days from the date of the order.

2. Thereafter, as per order dated 18.10.2021, the Rent Control Court, after recording a finding that the respondent tenant failed to show cause for the non compliance of the order dated 14.07.2021 directed the tenant to put the landlord in vacant possession of the petition schedule building under Section 12(3) of the Act by stopping all further proceedings.

3. Against the order under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1965, the respondent tenant filed RCA No. 45 of 2021 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam and the appellate authority, as per the impugned judgment dated 21.06.2022, modified the order dated 14.07.2021 in I.A. No. 3 of 2021 and directed the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent from January, 2019 till the date of the judgment of the appellate authority at the rate of Rs.5000/-per month within a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment and also to continue to deposit the monthly rent within the fifteenth day of the succeeding month. It was further ordered by the appellate authority that if the rent is not deposited as above, the trial court's order dated 18.10.2021 shall become operational without any further orders.

4. Heard Sri. P.M. Mohammad Shiraz, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri. K.R. Vinod, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that the Rent Control Court relied on Exhibit A1 copy of the rent agreement to arrive at a conclusion regarding the rate of rent and the admitted arrears of rent and also cited the decision in Gopala Panicker Baiju v. Mallika [2018 (5) KHC 95] to argue that the arrears of rent can be inferred from the admission of the parties or from the documents produced like the rent agreement, rent receipt etc. and that for the determination of a petition under Section 12 of the Act, 1965, it is permissible to require production of rent deed by the landlord and the rent receipts or documents mentioned in Section 9(2) of the Act, 1965 by the tenant.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent tenant argued that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned judgment of the appellate authority that Exhibit A1, copy of the rent deed relied on by the trial court, is an inadmissible document and that the trial court ought not to have accepted the same in evidence, especially when it is not in dispute that the original of Exhibit A1 is an insufficiently stamped document.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner pointed out that Exhibit A1 copy of the lease agreement was produced by the tenant before the Sales Tax authorities and the petitioner landlord obtained the same under the Right to Information Act from the Sales Tax authority and the objections raised by the respondent tenant are only to wriggle out of the liability to pay the admitted arrears of rent.

8. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner landlord produced the original of Exhibit A1 rent agreement and filed I.A. No. 1 of 2023 to receive the same as additional evidence in the case on the ground that only after the filing of the revision, he could find out the missing lease deed and he could not produce the same earlier as it was misplaced and could not be found out in spite of exercise of du