Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31404
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
Pramod – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Sultanpet Diocese Society – Respondent
O.P.(C) No.2307 of 2022 & connected cases
SAJAN VARGHEESE K., LIJU. M.P, JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY, SARATH M.S, B.PREMNATH, JACOB P.ALEX, P.G.JAYASHANKAR, P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL), S.RAJEEV (K/001711/2019), SAJANA V.H, SHAIJU GEORGE, AADERSH R.S. PANICKER, JOHN NELLIMALA SARAI, MOHAMMED SAGHEER(K/1512/2022)
Tenants must pay rent to maintain their status and seek equitable relief; failure to do so can result in the striking off of their pleadings.
Headnote:
Tenancy - Transfer of Property Act - Sections 105, 108, 111, 114 - The court emphasized the tenant's fundamental obligation to pay rent, stating that failure to do so disqualifies them from seeking equitable relief such as injunction against eviction. The court also discussed the inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to strike off pleadings for non-compliance with court orders.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple original petitions where tenants sought injunctions against eviction while failing to pay rent. The landlord filed for eviction and rent arrears, leading to disputes over the applicability of the Rent Control Act and the tenants' obligations.
Issues: Whether a tenant can seek an injunction against eviction without paying rent, and if pleadings can be struck off for non-compliance with court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: A tenant's right to seek equitable relief is contingent upon their compliance with the fundamental obligation to pay rent. Non-compliance can lead to the striking off of pleadings under the inherent powers of the court.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the trial court for reconsideration.
JUDGMENT
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.
2. The bare minimum facts in the three Original Petitions are summarised below:
O.P.(C) Nos.2307 and 2309 of 2022 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 applies. By Ext.P12 or
