Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
PRAMOD S/O PRABHAKARAN – Petitioner
Versus
THE SECRETARY, THE SULTANPET DIOCESE SOCIETY – Respondent
O.P. (C) Nos. 2307, 2309 of 2022, O.P. (C) No. 1446 of 2023
Decided On : 25-09-2024
The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that a tenant cannot seek an injunction against eviction without fulfilling their legal obligation to pay rent, as non-compliance constitutes an abuse of the court's process. The court emphasized that the fundamental obligation of a tenant to pay rent is a prerequisite for maintaining any equitable relief, such as an injunction from eviction. Failure to pay rent disqualifies the tenant from claiming such relief, as it undermines the very basis of the tenancy relationship and the principles of equity that underpin the grant of injunctions (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court held that courts possess inherent powers to strike off pleadings or dismiss proceedings where there is clear abuse of process, such as litigating without fulfilling statutory obligations, and this can be invoked even in the absence of specific statutory provisions for such actions (!) (!) . The judgment also underscores that the relationship between landlord and tenant, governed by statutory and contractual obligations, is rooted in the fundamental duty of the tenant to pay rent; neglect of this duty renders continued litigation or protection from eviction unjustified and constitutes an improper use of judicial process (!) (!) .
In essence, the core principle is that the right to seek equitable relief, like an injunction, is contingent upon the tenant's adherence to their statutory obligation to pay rent, and non-compliance can be deemed an abuse of process warranting the dismissal or striking off of pleadings to prevent misuse of the court’s machinery (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. A proximate equal of the issues involved in these Original Petitions may be expressed as “perversions of best things to worst abuses” as Milton limned in Paradise Lost.
2. Disquieting is the litigative trend, where a tenant takes the landlord in a law suit seeking protection from forcible eviction - a rhetoric, unaccompanied by a real threat on facts, in many a cases - but without performing his fundamental obligation in law to pay the rent? Is the plaintiff/tenant entitled to an equitable relief of injunction from eviction? Should the suit continue even when the plaintiff/tenant fails to pay the arrears of rent; or whether the same is liable to be aborted by a process known to law? Can pleadings be struck off in such cases as an abuse of the process of the court? Up to what extent, law recognises the tenant’s right to continue in the building, without paying the rent, under the guise of a protective order obtained by alleging a threat of forcible eviction? These are a few questions, which surface for consideration in these Original Petitions.
The bare minimum facts in the three Original Petitions are summarised below:
O.P. (C) Nos. 2307 and 2309 of 2022 are more or less similar and connected. The tenants under a common landlord are the petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suits, O.S. Nos. 200 and 202 of 2018, both of the Munsiff’s Court, Chittoor. The suits were filed by the landlord for eviction, as also, for realisation of rent arrears. In the suits, interim applications were filed (marked as Ext.P3 in both Original Petitions) under Section 151 of the Code, for an order directing the defendants/tenants to deposit the rent arrears specified in the petition, within a time limit stipulated by the court; and to strike off their defence, in case they fail to comply with the direction. The interim applications were resisted inter alia on the premise that Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred as, ‘the Rent Control Act’ for short) cannot be made applicable to a suit for eviction. Ext.P3 application was allowed in both the cases as per order produced at Ext.P5, which however directed only deposit of rent arrears by the tenants within a period of one month, without discussing and directing striking off the defense, on failure to deposit. Deposit was not made as directed in Ext.P5 orders by both the tenants (the petitioners in the Original Petitions). Thereupon, the plaintiff/landlord filed Ext.P6 application alleging non-compliance and seeking the defence to be struck off. It is at that stage, Ext.P5 order is challenged by the petitioners/defendants/tenants.
O.P. (C) No. 1446 of 2023
Here, the suit - O.S. No. 122/2021 of the Munsiff’s Court, North Paravur - is instituted by the tenant seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction from forcible eviction. An ex-parte interim order (Ext.P2), in the above direction was granted, which was later confirmed by Ext.P4 order, on merits. The defendant/landlord filed a written statement, along with a counter-claim for arrears of rent. Ext.P5 application was preferred by the defendant/landlord, again under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an order directing the plaintiffs/tenants to pay the rent arrears along with electricity and water charges. By Ext.P6 order, the claim for rent arrears was dismissed, holding that the tenanted premises is located in an area to which the provisions of the Rent Control Act was applicable, wherefore, civil court has no jurisdiction. However, there was a direction to pay the dues on account of electricity and water charges. Pursuant to the written statement along with the counter-claim, a conditional attachment of movables was sought for vide Ext.P10 in respect of the amounts claimed in the counter-claim. Ext.P11 objection was filed inter alia contending that the counter-claim is not maintainable, since the Rent Control Act
A tenant cannot seek an injunction against eviction without paying rent, as this constitutes an abuse of process of court, and courts can strike off pleadings for non-compliance with rent deposit ord....
Striking out defence of defendant – Judicial discretion must not be exercised in favour of a party indulging in contumacious defiance.
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....
The tenant is not liable to deposit the time-barred arrears of rent, particularly having regard to the requirement in Section 12(1)(a) that the arrears of rent must be legally recoverable from the te....
Judicial discretion must be exercised in eviction cases to avoid injustice against tenants, especially during bona fide delays caused by circumstances beyond their control.
Court can strike off defense for non-compliance with rent payment orders, emphasizing that defiance of court directives is unacceptable and justifies severe consequences.
Eviction suit – Power to strike off defence is considered to be discretionary which is to be exercised with circumspection but relaxation is reserved for a bonafide tenant and not as a matter of cour....
An application under Section 12(1) of the Rent Control Act is maintainable in an appeal against an order passed under Section 12(3), confirming tenant obligations for rent during eviction proceedings....
The failure of the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act, after the landlord's refusal to accept the tendered rent, makes the tenant liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the....
Tenants must deposit admitted rent during eviction proceedings under crisis; failure leads to automatic eviction unless sufficient cause is shown.
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
