SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32569

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944 OP (RC) NO. 162 OF 2022 SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF I.A.NO.7 OF 2022 AND R.C.P.NO.104 OF

2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), TIRUR PETITIONER:

HYDER HAJI AGED 71 YEARS S/O. HYDROSS HAJI, CHEKIDAN KUZHIYIL HOUSE, KATTIPARUTHI AMSOM, DESOM, VALANCHERRY P.O., TI-

RUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676552 BY ADVS.

C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL P.ABDUL NISHAD RAIHANATH T.H.

ANFAS C.K.

RESPONDENT/S:

TAJUDHEEN AHAMMED AGED 51 YEARS S/O. ABDU MASTER, MADAPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, THOZHU-

VANUR AMSOM, DESOM, THOZHUVANUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIS-

TRICT, PIN - 676552 THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner filed R.C.P.No.104 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Tirur, a petition under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the respondent herein-tenant from the petition schedule shop room. In that Rent Control Petition filed on 18.10.2016, the Rent Control Court passed Ext.P3 ex-parte order of eviction dated 10.01.2020. The tenant filed an application to set aside that order of eviction. That application was allowed and R.C.P.No.104 of 2016 was restored to file on 01.04.2022. The landlord filed I.A.No.7 of 2022, an application under Section 12 of the Act, seeking an order directing the tenant to deposit admitted arrears of rent amounting to Rs.6,50,000/-. In that application, the tenant is yet to file his objection. The grievance of the petitioner is the delay in disposing R.C.P.No.104 of 2016 and also I.A.No.7 of 2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord.

Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the respondent-tenant is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Rent Control Petition is of the year 2016. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged 71 years. Therefore, time bound consideration of the Rent Control Petition and also the interlocutory application is highly essential.

4. Section 12 of the Act deals with payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. As per Section 12(1), no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that Section, or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. As per Section 12(2), the deposit under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time as the court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed for the service of notice referred to in sub-section (4). As per the proviso to Section 12(2), the time fixed by the court for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the order and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than two weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due. As per Section 12(3) of the Act, if any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. As per Section 12(4), when any deposit is made under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord in the prescribed manner, and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority in that behalf.

5. The liability of a tenant under Section 12(1) of the Act, against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, or who prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, against any order made by the Rent Control Court on an application made by a landlord under Section 11, is limited to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top