Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 49649
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ
PARAYATTA SASTHVU @ MANI – Appellant
Versus
ERIYATTUKUZHIYIL VEERANKUTTY – Respondent
OP (RC) 3935 2013
SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SRI.T.K.SANDEEP, SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR, SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN, SRI.A.K.MADHAVAN UNNI
The court reinforces that jurisdiction under eviction laws remains intact when non-payment of rent is acknowledged, even amid ongoing appeals.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenant Landlord Relationship - Act 2 of 1965 - Sections 12, 18 - The court upheld the authority of the Rent Control Court to issue eviction orders while recognizing the tenant's right to appeal under Section 18 and granted time to remit dues under Section 12.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant appealed against an eviction order issued by the landlord. During the appeal, the landlord invoked Section 12 of the Act. The appellate court's decision to issue an order is disputed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no legal infirmity in the lower court's determination regarding non-payment of rent and affirmed the jurisdiction to act under Section 12, while allowing the tenant time to remit dues.
Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in issuing orders under Section 12 of Act 2 of 1965 while an appeal under Section 18 was pending.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the tenant's appeal does not invalidate the prior eviction order, as the landlord's claim of non-payment of rent was not disputed, thus affirming the authority under Section 12.
Final Decision: The original petition is ordered to allow time for payment to vacate eviction proceedings.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner quite in extenso.
2.Petitioner is the tenant of a building of which the respondent is the landlord. The application for eviction filed by the landlord led to an order of eviction. The tenant filed an appeal against that order under Section 18 of the Act. Pending that appeal, the landlord invoked Section 12 of Act 2 of 1965 . The Appellate Court in exercise of authority under that provision issued an order. That is under challenge. The appeal under Section 18 is pending before the court below. It stands stayed from this proceeding.
3.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error, particularly when the Rent Control Court has held that nonpayment of rent is not in dispute, though the tenant's plea is that he was O.P(R.C).3935/13 2 thrown out of possession by criminal force. We see that as of now, there is no material to hold that the jural relationship between the landlord and tenant has broken, to take away jurisdiction under Section 12 . Looking at the issue from that angle also, we see no ground to interfere in this matter instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4.However, taking a lenient view, we accede to the request of the petitioner for two months' time to remit the entire amounts due as on that day in terms of Section 12 of Act 2 of 1965 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and thereby satisfy the liability to pay such amounts. If that is done, the impugned order under Section 12 of Act 2 of 1965 would stand discharged and the Appellate Authority would proceed with the Rent Control Appeal pending before it on merits.
Original petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
