Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024/ 3RD ASWINA, 1946 OP(C) NO.2307 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2022 IN I.A NO.435/2021 IN OS NO.200 OF 2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
PRAMOD, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, LAKSHMI FANCY AND FOOT WEAR, 21/123, ST ANTONY’S CHURCH BUILDING, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR POST, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678104.
BY ADVS.
SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
LIJU. M.P JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 THE SECRETARY, THE SULTANPET DIOCESE SOCIETY, RC CHURCH, ST SEBASTIAN’S CATHEDRAL, PALAYAPET,PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.
2 THE PROCURATOR, THE SULTANPET DIOCESE SOCIETY, RC CHURCH, ST.SEBASTIAN’S CATHEDRAL, PALAYAPET,PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.
BY ADVS.
SARATH M.S B.PREMNATH JACOB P.ALEX, AMICUS CURIAE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, ALONG WITH OP(C) Nos.1446/2023 AND 2309/2022, THE COURT ON 25.09.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024/3RD ASWINA, 1946 OP(C) NO.2309 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2022 IN I.A NO.437/2021 IN OS NO.202 OF 2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
RAVIPRASAD, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PONNU, AGED 52, NANDHA FURNITURE UPHOLSTERY, 21/123, ST ANTONY’S CHURCH BUILDING, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR POST, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678104.
BY ADVS.
SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
LIJU. M.P JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 THE SECRETARY, THE SULTANPET DIOCESE SOCIETY, RC CHURCH, ST SEBASTIAN’S CATHEDRAL, PALAYAPET, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.
2 THE PROCURATOR, THE SULTANPET DIOCESE SOCIETY, RC CHURCH, ST SEBASTIAN’S CATHEDRAL, PALAYAPET, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678001.
BY ADVS.
SARATH M S B.PREMNATH JACOB P.ALEX, AMICUS CURIAE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, ALONG WITH OP(C) Nos.2307/2022 AND 2309/2022, THE COURT ON 25.09.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024/3RD ASWINA, 1946 OP(C) NO.1446 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 28.01.2023 IN I.A.NO.24/2022 & 28/2022 IN O.S NO.122 OF 2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN I.As/DEFENDANTS IN O.S:
1 M.T. VALSON, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O M.P.THOMMY, HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT 'AKSHARAM’, KUNDUPPADAM ROAD, MANJUMMEL P.O., UDYOGAMANDAL (VIA), ERNAKULAM-682 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.M. GEORGE, AGED 68, S/O K.V. MICHEAL, RESIDING AT KOTHETH HOUSE, MANJUMMEL P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683501.
2 ABHEDANANDAN ASARI V., S/O.VISWANATHAN ASARI, RESIDING AT OORUVILA HOUSE, THIRUPURAM, NEYYATINKARA TALUK, KANCHAMPAZHINJI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695525.
BY ADVS.
P.G.JAYASHANKAR P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)
S.RAJEEV (K/001711/2019)
SAJANA V.H SHAIJU GEORGE AADERSH R.S. PANICKER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN I.As/PLAINTIFF IN O.S:
VINCY CHERIAN, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN, ELENGIKAL HOUSE, NEAR POWER HOUSE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 101, NOW RESIDING AT BUILDING NO.19/208A, KUNDUPPADAM ROAD, MANJUMMEL P.O, UDYOGAMANDAL (VIA), ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683501.
BY ADVS.
JOHN NELLIMALA SARAI .
MOHAMMED SAGHEER(K/1512/2022)
JACOB P.ALEX, AMICUS CURIAE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2024, ALONG WITH OP(C) Nos.2307/2022 AND 2309/2022, THE COURT ON 25.09.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
'CR'
Tenants must pay rent to retain their legal status; failure to do so denies them the right to seek injunctions and may result in striking off of pleadings as abuse of legal process.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 105, 108, 111, and 114 - Issues concerning tenant's entitlement to injunction from forcible eviction without payment of rent. A tenant must fulfil the obligation to pay rent to retain the right to seek equitable relief; failure to do so results in the defense being struck off as an abuse of court process. (Paras 16, 18, 19, 50, 51)
(B) Courts exercise inherent jurisdiction to enforce tenant obligations and curtail abuse of process; the principles governing landlord-tenant relationships dictate that an injunction cannot be granted without compliance with rental obligations. (Paras 45, 48, 51)
(C) Procedural guidelines provided for the civil courts to ensure compliance with rental obligations by tenants seeking injunction. (Paras 49, 52)
Facts of the case:
Multiple original petitions were brought before the court regarding tenants seeking injunctions against eviction while failing to pay rent or comply with court orders to deposit arrears. The landlords challenged these injunctions arguing abuse of the legal process.
Findings of Court:
Tenants cannot claim a protective status without fulfilling their basic obligation to pay rent; litigation arising from such failure is deemed an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether tenants who fail to pay rent are entitled to injunctions against eviction; whether their pleadings can be struck off for non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: A tenant’s right to seek an injunction depends on the performance of their obligation to pay rent. Non-compliance with this obligation amounts to an abuse of the court’s process, justifying the striking off of pleadings and the dismissal of suits.
Result: The impugned orders were set aside and matters remitted for fresh consideration by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Dated, this the 25th September, 2024
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 -: 2 :-
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.
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 -: 3 :-
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 -: 4 :-
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 -: 5 :-
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 -: 6 :-
inter alia contending that the counter-claim is
