IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the eviction order based on arrears of rent, rejecting the tenant's unsubstantiated claim of loan adjustment against rent.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.P. No. 23 of 2012 of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur who successfully resisted the petition filed by the petitioner/landlord for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) before the said court. However, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur reversed the order of the Rent Control Court in R.C.A. No. 72 of 2014 and directed the revision petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlord on the ground of arrears of rent envisaged under Section 11(2)(b) of the said Act.

2. The landlord-tenant relationship between the revision petitioner and the respondent was not in dispute. However, the revision petitioner had contested the rate of rent which the landlord claimed as Rs.3,294/- per month from 04.07.2008 onwards, and stated that it was actually Rs.1,594/- per month from 06.10.2006 onwards. The fact that the revision petitioner did not pay rent to the respondent from the year 2010 onwards is admitted by him. However, it was contended by the revision petitioner that the respondent had availed a loan of Rs.75,000/- from him on 29.01.2011, and that there was an understanding between them that interest will be paid for the excess amount after calculating and adjusting the arrears of rent due to the respondent from the revision petitioner. With the above rival contentions, the parties had undergone the trial before the Rent Control Court, in which the respondent/landlord was examined as PW1 and four documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. The revision petitioner tendered oral evidence as RW1 and brought on record four documents which were marked as Exts.B1 to B4. The Rent Control Court, after evaluating the evidence in the above regard and hearing both sides, held that there was no arrears of rent due from the revision petitioner in view of the payment of Rs.75,000/- made by him to the respondent/landlord as evidenced by Ext.B2 receipt. Accordingly, the prayer for eviction was disallowed.

3. In the appeal preferred by the respondent/landlord as R.C.A. No. 72 of 2014, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, as per the judgment dated 24.08.2020 held that the contention of the revision petitioner about the payment of a huge amount of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent/landlord was not at all believable and probable, and accordingly reversed the order of the Rent Control Court. It is aggrieved by the above verdict of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, that the petitioner is here with this revision.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

5. The point to be decided is whether there is any scope of interference with the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur directing the revision petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the respondent/landlord on the ground of arrears of rent.

6. The respondent/landlord has strongly disputed the case of the revision petitioner/tenant about the payment of Rs.75,000/- to him. Notwithstanding the question regarding the availability of evidence regarding such payment, the core issue to be resolved in this revision is whether the contention of the tenant about his entitlement to have the bulk payment made to the landlord adjusted with the arrears of rent due to the landlord, is legally sustainable or not.

7. After the landmark decisions in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala, 1995 (2) KLT 848 and Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria, 2004 (1) KLT 767 Section 8(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, is not in the statute book, as it was declared ultra vires. The inevitable consequence which emerged is that the retention of advance in excess of one month’s rent or security deposit by the landlord, could not be challenged by the tenant. Therefore, the contention of the tenant-revision petitioner that the amount of Rs.75,000/- which he claims to ha