The court established the requirement of tenants to deposit rent during dispute resolution, affirming the trial court's interim orders.

JUDGMENT

These original petitions have been filed by the petitioners, challenging the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Erattupetta, in I.A No.4/2024 in O.S.Nos.100/2024 & 99/2024 dated 23.01.2025, wherein the petitioners were directed to deposit the arrears of rent, failing which the defence of the petitioners were ordered to be struck off.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent.

3. The case of the petitioners in both cases is that the respondent filed two suits against the petitioner as O.S No.99/2024 and 100/2024 seeking eviction from the plaint schedule premises consisting of three rooms, alleging that the parties had entered into a lease agreement dated 08.03.2022. The tenant was paying rent for some time till June 2023 and thereafter defaulted, which led to the filing of three suits; O.S. Nos. 99/2024, 100/2024, and 101/2024. In these suits, the petitioners, as the defendants, stated in the written statement that the disputed property actually belongs to the petitioners and earlier belonged to the Devaswom, under whom both the petitioners and the alleged leaseholders had been occupying it. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application before the Land Reforms Authority for issuing Pattayam. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for eviction, contending that the petitioners are the tenant, but the petitioner / defendant (s) disputes the relationship of the tenant as well as landlord, and there is no rental agreement, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.During the pendency of the suits, the plaintiff had filed an application under Section 151 of CPC in all three suits, and the court below passed the order under challenge in all three cases. The trial court, by the impugned orders, directed the petitioners/defendants to deposit the alleged arrears of rent, failing which the defence would be struck off. Though the court has passed the orders in all three cases, the petitioner has not challenged the order passed in O.S No.101/2024, but challenged only the orders in two cases i.e., O.S Nos. 99/2024 and 100/2024.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the issue of landlord–tenant relationship is seriously disputed and is still pending before the trial court. The petitioner disputed the ownership of the plaintiff and claimed the right over the property under the settlement register, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the property under Survey No.1244/1 belongs to Devaswom and respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the property. They created the documents, and they claim to have purchased a portion of the land from another leaseholder, which itself is invalid. It is further submitted that the petitioner(s) contributed a sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- towards the construction of a church and a commercial complex, from which the petitioners are currently occupying the rooms. When the petitioner approached the Land Reforms Authority for issuing the Pattayam for the said property, the respondent filed the suit contending that the petitioners are tenants and the respondents are the owners of the property.

6.In these circumstances, until the issues are framed and the trial court conducts an enquiry regarding the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship, the court below cannot invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to direct the petitioners to deposit arrears of rent. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Hence prayed for allowing the petition.

7.Per co