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.

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 D