Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48949
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
MALIYEKKAL ABDU RAZAK
– Appellant
Versus
KARUTHEDATH MOOSA HAJI – Respondent
RCRev. 9 2022
RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY, K.VIJINA, ARUL MURALIDHARAN, C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL (CAVEATOR)
Timely payment of rent as per court orders is crucial to avoid eviction under the Kerala Buildings Act; late payments do not remedy previous defaults.
Headnote:
Eviction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii), 12(1), 12(3), 18(1)(b), 20 - The court upheld the eviction order against the tenant for failing to deposit admitted arrears of rent within the stipulated time, interpreting the provisions on tenant obligations under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant was evicted following a petition by the landlords under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for failing to pay admitted rent. After several proceedings, the tenant's appeal was dismissed for not complying with rent obligations.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the tenant had not complied with the rent payment order and failed to provide satisfactory grounds for the non-payment, thereby affirming the eviction order.
Issues: Whether the tenant's late payment of rent fulfilled the conditions set by the previous court orders under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that non-payment of rent as directed constitutes grounds for eviction under Section 12 of the Act, and late payments do not negate earlier defaults.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed; the tenant must vacate the property within one month.
O R D E R
Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioner is the tenant. The respondents-landlords filed R.C.P.No.37 of 2017 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Parappanangadi, seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . The respondents filed I.A.No.3344 of 2018 in the R.C.P. under Section 12 of the Act. Holding that the petitioner failed to deposit arrears of rent admitted to be due, in terms of the order dated 27.03.2019 under (1) of the Act and the petitioner did not offer any satisfactory explanation, the Rent Control Court on 09.04.2021 passed an order under (3) of the Act. Further proceedings in the rent control petition was stopped and the petitioner was directed to put the respondents in vacant possession of the petition schedule building within two months from the date of that order. The petitioner filed an appeal, R.C.A.No.15 of 2021, under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Manjeri, did not accept the contentions of the petitioner. The appeal was dismissed as per judgment dated 25.09.2021. Assailing the judgment and the order, this revision under Section 20 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner.
2. On 17.01.2022, the respondents for whom a caveat was filed entered appearance through their counsel.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. There was a dispute regarding the rate of rent. The rent agreed by the petitioner is Rs.7,620/- per month. Provisions of Section 12 (1) of the Act permit only to act upon the admitted rate of rent and the courts below rightly had accepted the rate of rent as Rs.7,620/- as admitted by the petitioner.
5. Regarding the period of tenancy also, there was dispute. Section 12 (1) of the Act invests the court jurisdiction to direct the tenant to deposit only the arrears of rent admitted to be due. Again, the courts below had acted upon the admission of the petition regarding the rent that remains due. It was in the said premises that the Rent Control Court ordered on 27.03.2019 in I.A.No.3344 of 2018 that the petitioner should deposit the arrears of rent in lump the amount of rent due till February 2017, and continue to pay the rent for the subsequent months, within 15 days from the date on which such rent falls due.
6. The petitioner did not accept the said order and he filed R.C.A.No.16 of 2019 before the Appellate Authority. That appeal was, however, dismissed as not maintainable as per judgment dated 16.12.2020. Thereupon, the petitioner filed O.P.(RC) No.22 of 2021 before this Court. As per the judgment dated 08.02.2021, this court disposed of the said original petition holding that the petitioner could raise all his contentions regarding the period of rent during which he admits to be due before the Rent Control Court. The petitioner had filed a statement regarding the amount paid towards rent and arrears. The Rent Control Court thereafter ordered that rent from January, 2020 has been remaining due and the petitioner was directed to pay such rent within 15 days from the due date.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that both the courts below did not consider the aspect that the amount of arrears of rent was finally determined only when the order dated 09.04.2021 was rendered, and therefore, the order under Section 12 (3) of the Act passed on the same day, without affording a further opportunity to the petitioner for making payment of the rent in arrears is against the provisions of (3) of the Act and is unsustainable in law.
8. The Appellate Authority dismissed R.C.A.No.15 of
2021 on 25.09.2021 and by that time, the petitioner was obliged to pay rent till September, 2021, in terms of the order of the Rent Control Court. It is contended that the petitioner has in fact deposited the entire rent to be paid till October, 2021, on 20.10.2021, a
