Eviction proceedings under Section 11(2)(b) are invalid without a proper demand notice specifying rent periods and amounts owed.

O R D E R

Somarajan, J.

Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), the tenant came up with this Revision.

2. The main questions muted by the tenant are the following:

(1) Whether issuance of a notice to the tenant by the landlord, without specifying the period under which the rent fell in arrears, would satisfy the mandate under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act?

(2) What would be the nature of the order that may be passed under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act and whether it is permissible to order eviction under (2)(b)

without specifying the quantum of rent or the period and rate of rent fell in arrears?

(3) Whether it is permissible for the landlord to unilaterally cancel an addendum to a lease executed?

3. The sum and substance of the case advanced by the landlord is that pursuant to the arrears of rent, he had issued Ext.A5 notice to the tenant demanding payment of arrears of rent, as mandated under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act, but did not serve the purpose and hence eviction proceeding was initiated. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition, directing the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the building under (2)(b) of the Act, but subject to the application of (2)(c) of the Act. It was taken up in appeal, wherein the order passed by the Rent Control Court was upheld by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision is filed.

4. In order to exhaust the ground under Section 11 (2)(b)

of the Act, there should be a demand notice specifying the period in which the rent fell in arrears and the rate of rent payable. Going by Ext.A5 demand notice, it is not clear, what is the claim raised therein. It is not made mention anywhere in the notice, the period in which the rent fell in arrears. The rate of rent payable is also not made mention in the demand notice. It is also not mentioned in the notice, what is the arrears of rent and from which month or date onwards the rent fell in arrears. On the other hand, in the demand notice, the landlord has admitted that there is a subsequent addendum executed on 9.12.2012 (Ext.B9), by which, some portion of the rent payable was waived by the landlord. It is also not made mention anywhere in the notice, what is the portion of the rent waived by the landlord. On the other hand, a statement had been made in the notice that the landlord has decided to unilaterally withdraw the abovesaid waiver as the tenant has defaulted in making payment within time. It is also not clear under what capacity the landlord has unilaterally cancelled the waiver already given and whether a right of cancellation unilaterally reserved with the landlord in the addendum. In short, the notice issued is not in conformity with the requirement under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act. Both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority failed in considering the said question. Issuance of a demand notice in conformity with the requirement under the proviso to (2)(b) of the Act is a pre-requisite and when the notice is found to be not in accordance with or in conformity with the requirement, the same would be fatal to the eviction proceedings initiated under (2)(b) of the Act.

5. An order under Section 11 (2)(b) should reflect the mandate thereunder by specifying the period in which the rent fell in arrears till the date of demand notice and the monthly rent payable. It should be capable of ascertainment on an application under (2)(c) of the Act and no kind of guess work can be made by the Rent Control Court under (2)(c) of the Act. In fact, there is no scope for adjudication or an enquiry under (2)(c) of the Act as the jurisdiction is restricted only to look into the question of payment of the entire amount adjudicated as arrears of rent under (2)(b) of the Act within the time specified. This would show that the o