Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 38222
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ
CHATHOTH REETHA – Appellant
Versus
R REJUNA JAYESH Advocate - M RAMESH CHANDER (SR ), ,ANEESH JOSEPH,M RAMESH CHANDER (SR – Respondent
RENT CONTROL REVISION 405/2012
Procedural lapses should not obstruct justice when parties subsequently comply with legal requirements.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 12 - The court analyzed the procedural lapses in dismissing an appeal due to non-deposit of rent arrears and reaffirmed the importance of following legal procedures while also considering the tenants' compliance in paying dues.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an appeal dismissed by the Appellate Authority for the non-deposit of rent arrears despite extensions given. This occurred while a landlord's application invoking Section 12 of the Rent Control Act was pending.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that, although procedural lapses existed in the dismissal, the tenants had since deposited the required arrears and had been paying rent. Therefore, the earlier dismissal of the appeal was deemed inappropriate.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority properly dismissed the appeal for non-deposit of rent arrears, despite the tenants showing compliance with necessary payments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that procedural technicalities should not impede justice, particularly when compliance was subsequently achieved; it vacated the dismissal and directed expedited hearing of the appeal.
Final Decision: The dismissal of the appeal was vacated, and the case was ordered to be heard and disposed of expeditiously.
O R D E R
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The short question raised herein is one with respect to the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal on 28/09/2012 by a short order. It was dismissed saying that “the rent arrears has not been deposited in spite of specific directions and extension of time, the appellant is not entitled to proceed with the appeal”. It is a case where the appeal is filed from the order in R.C.P.No.183/2007. While the appeal was pending, the landlord filed I.A.No.306/2011 invoking Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 wherein also a similar order was passed on 28/09/2012.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri P.U.Shailajan and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Shri M.Ramesh Chander.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of various decisions of this Court, namely,C.V.Xavier& Others v. Francis Leonard Pappali [1975 KLT 542], Pochappan Narayanan v. Gopalan [1990 (2) KLT 1] and Sidharthan v. Hassankutty Haji [1994 (2) KLT 419], there are serious procedural lapse in the matter and, therefore, the orders cannot be supported. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent relied upon the Judgment of another Division Bench of this Court reported in Narayanan v. Vinod [2004 KHC 1238].
4. It is seen from the proceedings that when the I.A was filed, it was posted for objection and hearing. In the meanwhile, it was being posted for deposit of admitted arrears also. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent invited our attention to the proceedings recorded by the court on different dates. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in the light of the conduct of the tenants not clearing the entire arrears, the Appellate Authority was right in passing the orders.
5. In fact, the inter locutory application was disposed of by order dated 28/09/2012 and the appeal was also dismissed on the same day as evident from the orders impugned.
6. In the light of the provisions of the Act, and the legal procedures explained by the various Benches of this Court, we are of the view that the orders passed by the learned District Judge will not fully satisfy the procedures prescribed but at the same time, we are told that in the light of the interim order passed by this Court, the entire arrears have been deposited by the petitioners herein and they are continuously paying the monthly rent from time to time.
7. Therefore, we are of the view that a disposal of the appeal itself will satisfy the interest of the parties. The Appellate Authority will therefore take back the appeal and dispose of the matter. To that extent the order dismissing the appeal is vacated. In the light of the above, we direct that R.C.A.No.119/2008 be heard and disposed of expeditiously at any rate before 31/07/2013 on merits, since it is an appeal of the year 2008. In the meanwhile, the petitioners will continue to pay the monthly rent from time to time. The Lower Court Records will be sent back immediately. The R.C.R. is disposed of as above. Parties will appear on 30/05/2013.
