Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath, Mohammed Nias C.P., C.S. Sudha, Syam Kumar V.M., JJ.
Zeenath Ibrahim And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Joy Daniel – Respondent
RP NO. 753 OF 2020, RCREV. NO. 380 OF 2017
Decided On : 07-11-2024
(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Section 12 – Maintainability of application under Section 12(1) in appeals against orders under Section 12(3) – The court overruled previous decisions stating that Section 12(1) applies only to final orders of eviction under Section 11, affirming that it applies to all orders made during eviction proceedings. (Paras 20-21)
Facts of the case: The landlord filed a Rent Control Petition for eviction against the tenant, who disputed the arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court ordered the tenant to pay the admitted arrears, which the tenant failed to do, leading to further proceedings. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court: The court found that an application under Section 12(1) is maintainable in appeals against orders under Section 12(3), reversing the previous Full Bench decision. (Paras 21-22)
Issues: The main issue was whether an application under Section 12(1) is maintainable in an appeal against an order passed under Section 12(3). (Para 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the obligation to pay admitted arrears of rent applies to all orders made during eviction proceedings, not just final orders of eviction. (Paras 16-20)
Result: The Rent Control Revision was dismissed, and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises. (Paras 24-25)
ORDER :
Kauser Edappagath, J.
Doubting the correctness of the law declared by the three Division Benches[Sulaiman Sahib v. Mohemmed Moosa, (2003 (2) KLT 1058), Mohammed Shameer v. Ashokan (2015 (1) KLT 396) and City Co-operative Hospital v. Luquman (2017 (3) KLT 1172)]of this Court on the question of maintainability of an application filed under Section 12 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the Rent Control Act) in an appeal preferred against the order passed under Section 12(3), a Full Bench[Joy Daniel v. Ibrahimkutty {2020 (2) KLT 850 (FB)}]of this Court thought it appropriate to refer the question to a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement, and that is how the above review petition has been placed before us.
Background Facts
2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. The landlord filed a Rent Control Petition against his tenant for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Rent Control Act before the Rent Control Court, Thrissur as RCP No.105/2013. There is no dispute between the parties regarding their jural relationship and rate of rent. The tenant is running an electric shop in the building under the name and style 'Sara Electricals'. The rate of rent per month is Rs.66,000/-. During the pendency of the Rent Control Petition, the landlord filed IA No.456/2013 on 20/12/2013 at the trial court under Section 12(1) of the Rent Control Act seeking a direction to the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent. According to the landlord, a sum of Rs.18,07,819/- was due and payable towards arrears of rent. The tenant disputed the allegation and filed a statement contending that he was liable to pay only Rs.5,63,817/-. By the order dated 12/6/2015, the Rent Control Court directed the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent. Though the Rent Control Court granted sufficient time to the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent, the tenant failed to remit the same. The landlord then filed IA No.15498/2015 under Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act seeking an order to stop further proceedings and to direct the tenant to hand over the possession of the building to him. By the order dated 31/8/2015 passed in IA No.15498/2015, the Rent Control Court recorded a finding that the tenant has failed to pay the admitted arrears of rent ( Rs.5,63,817/-) and consequently directed the tenant to hand over the petition-scheduled building to the landlord within a period of one month. By a separate order, on the same date, the Rent Control Court disposed of the Rent Control Petition.
3. Assailing the aforesaid order in IA No.15498/2015, the tenant filed RCA No.75/2015 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur (for short, the Appellate Authority). Pending adjudication of the appeal, the landlord filed IA No.5136/2016 on 16/11/2016 invoking Section 12(1) of the Rent Control Act seeking an order directing the tenant to deposit the then admitted arrears of rent. By the order dated 9/3/2017, the Appellate Authority passed an order under Section 12(2) in IA No.5136/2016 and directed the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent of Rs.10,88,000/- within four weeks or to show cause. The Appellate Authority passed an order on 7/4/2017 under Section 12(3) directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building as the direction in IA No.5136/2016 was not complied with.
4. The tenant preferred RCR No.380/2017 challenging the order dated 7/4/2017 in RCA No.75/2015. In the revision petition, the tenant essentially took up a contention that the application filed by the landlord, i.e., IA No. 5136/2016 was not maintainable and it was not open to the landlord to invoke Section 12(1) of the Rent Control Act in an appeal filed by the tenant against an order passed by the Rent Control Court in exercise of its power under Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act. In support of the said contention, the tenant heavily relied on the two decisions of the Division Benc
An application under Section 12(1) of the Rent Control Act is maintainable in appeals against orders under Section 12(3), overruling previous decisions that restricted its applicability.
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....
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....
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 of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all courts and Tribunals throughout the territory of the State is both of admi....
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....
Point of Law : Object of s. 38(1) is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by some order which affects his right or liability.
Point of Law - Appellate Authority held that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained
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
