Procedural adherence in rent control appeals does not necessitate prior rent deposit under certain sections of the Kerala Buildings Act.

O R D E R

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

These revisions are at the instance of the tenant. It is unfortunate that the Appellate Authority, without looking at the Larger Bench decision as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court, proceeded to stop the proceedings in the appeal, holding that the tenant failed to deposit the rent arrears as ordered by the Rent Control Court in proceedings initiated under Section 12 (1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), eventhough no such application was filed before the Appellate Court under (1) of the Act. If there was an application filed under (1) of the Act, no doubt the Appellate Authority could have passed an order stopping the proceedings, consequent upon non-compliance with the direction under (1) of the Act. The question is whether there is any condition precedent to deposit the rent arrears, as ordered by the Rent Control Court under (3) of the Act, while considering an appeal under Section

18 of the Act. There is no law which contemplates such a condition precedent. (See the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Suvarna v. Ibrahimkutty and Others [ 2021(6) KHC 250 ]).

2. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlord tried to rely on the Larger Bench decision of this Court in Zeenath Ibrahim v. Joy Daniel [ 2024 (7) KHC 195 ]. In fact, the Larger Bench only decided the question whether an application under Section 12 (1) of the Act is maintainable in an appeal preferred under Section 18 of the Act, challenging an order passed under (3) of the Act. The Larger Bench held that such an application is maintainable. That means, in order to stop all the proceedings in an appeal under of the Act, there must be an application under (1) of the Act and without such an application under (1) of the Act, the Appellate Court cannot dispose of the appeal or stop the proceedings based on the orders passed by the Rent Control Court. It is possible that a perverse order may be passed by the Rent Control Court, and the Appellate Court will have to apply its mind under (1) of the Act to decide whether a direction to pay the admitted arrears of rent should be passed or not. It is for the Appellate Court to decide whether such a direction under (1) should be passed. If such an application is not filed, the Appellate Court will have to decide the matter on its merit in regard to the legality of the order passed under (3) of the Act. Without such an application, the Court cannot stop the entire proceedings and reject the case of the tenant. The Appellate Authority has bypassed all the procedures contemplated under the law while deciding this appeal. In fact, the matter ought to have been decided on its merit itself instead of passing such an order. The appellate authority could have disposed of the appeal itself on merits within the time taken by it to pass the impugned order. We deprecate the practice of the Rent Control Appellate Authority adopting such a shortcut method overlooking the decisions of the Larger Bench and Division Bench of this Court.

3. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is restored to files. We direct the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of appearance. However, if any application is filed under Section 12 (1) of the Act, the same shall also be considered in accordance with law. Till the above relief is worked out, we direct that the execution proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

The parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 02.06.2025.

These Rent Control Revision Petitions are disposed of as above.