Delays in court processes should not burden tenants with substantial arrears; eviction justified for business expansion.

O R D E R

A. Muhamed Mustque, J.

The tenant in this revision questions a composite order fixing the fair rent, as well as the order of eviction under Section 11 (4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . We shall first advert to the fixation of fair rent. The rent payable by the tenant was Rs.3,000/- per month. This was enhanced to Rs.4,550/- per month. However, we note that the Rent Control Petition was filed in the year 2016 and disposed of only in the year 2020, directing the tenant to pay Rs.4,550/- per month with effect from 24.06.2016, with an increase of 15% per every three years till the building is vacated. The statutory mandate to dispose of the Rent Control Petition is four months from the date of appearance of the respondents. If the tenant is directed to pay the arrears of rent at the revised rate from the date of institution of the eviction petition, sometimes the tenant would not be in a position to pay such huge arrears of rent. No fault is attributed to the tenant in delaying the proceedings. If the court fails to adhere to the statutory time of four months for disposing of the matter, the tenant should not be made to suffer for such a delay by paying huge arrears of rent at the revised rate. The tenancy in dispute is monthly. That means the tenant is expected to pay such rent every month. We are not saying that the court cannot fix the fair rent from the date of institution of the eviction petition, as that is a normal rule. But, at the same time, while the court fixes such a fair rent, the court shall note that such a fixation would render the tenancy at stake, causing the tenant to suffer a substantial burden of arrears of rent at an enhanced rate due to the delay in disposing of the matter. In this matter, we are of the view that the tenant is liable to pay the arrears of rent, at the revised rate, from the date of the order of the Rent Control Court, i.e., 08.01.2020. We do not want to interfere with the periodical enhancement granted by the court.

2. As regards the second issue, we note that the landlord sought eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Act for starting a business. The landlord is already running a business at Thrissur, and wants to expand his business by establishing a similar business at Kunnamkulam, where this tenanted premise is located. The trial court appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective. The Rent Control Court also found that the tenant is not entitled to protection under the second proviso to (3) of the Act.

In such circumstances, we find no scope to interfere with the matter. The revision petition, challenging the order under Section 11 (3) of the Act is accordingly dismissed. However, we partially interfere with the order of fixation of fair rent, as above. We grant the tenant six months’ time to surrender the building with the following conditions:

i) The tenant shall clear the entire arrears of rent within a period of four weeks from today. The arrears of rent shall be paid at the rate modified by this Court.

ii) The tenant shall continue to pay the rent at the enhanced rate till the actual surrender of the building.

iii) The tenant shall file an undertaking to the above effect before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within four weeks from today.