IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 37 of 2010()
1. M.ABDUL JABBAR,S/O.K.AHAMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MOHAMED AMEEN,AGED 33 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. MOHAMMED ELYAS,31 YRS,S/O.SULAIMAN
For Petitioner :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :02/02/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
----------------------------------
R.C.R. No.37 of 2010
----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010
O R D E R
————–
Pius C.Kuriakose,J.
Under challenge in this revision petition filed
under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1965 by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent
Control Appellate Authority dismissing an order passed by
the local Rent Control Court under Section 12(1) of the Act.
The Rent Control Court passed the order in
I.A.No.4150/2009. It was an application filed under Section
12 by the landlord on the allegation that the tenant has not
paid or deposited the arrears of rent which fell due
admittedly and also the rent which fell due subsequently.
According to the Rent Control Court, the tenant in the
statement of objections filed by him to the Rent Control
Petition has admitted that rent is in arrears at the rate of
Rs.20,000/- per mensum from October 2008. According to
the court, in the teeth of such an admission the tenant is not
entitled to avoid payment of rent. The above view of the
RCR.37/2010
2
Rent Control Court was virtually endorsed by the Appellate
Authority by its judgment.
2. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds
have been raised and Sri.Mohamed Mustaque, counsel for
the revision petitioner would address us on the basis of those
grounds. Mr. Mustaque submitted that the contentions of
the revision petitioner is that at the time of taking the
building on lease he had deposited a substantial amount with
the landlord and that the rent which fell into arrears has
been adjusted by the tenant against a substantial amount
which the tenant had paid to the landlord at the time of
entrustment.
3. Eventhough Mr. Mohamed Mustaque was very
persuasive, we are not inclined to examine merits of the
various grounds raised in the revision. We notice that the
order passed by the Rent Control Court, which was
confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is not a final order
under Section 12(3). The above order is only an order under
Section 12(1) directing the tenant to pay the arrears. The
consequence of non compliance with the above order in the
absence of the revision petitioner not showing sufficient
cause to the contrary will be a summary order under Section
RCR.37/2010
3
12(3) and that summary order will be appealable under
Section 18. It is doubtful whether the order which was
impugned before the Rent Control Appellate Authority was
appealable since it was only interlocutory in nature and did
not affect the rights/liabilities of the parties. We dismiss the
Rent Control Revision. However we make it clear that it will
be open to the revision petitioner to urge all the grounds in
this revision before the Appellate Authority, in the appeal
which the revision petitioner may have to file against the
final order to be passed by the Rent Control Court on I.A.
4150/2009. Mr. Mohamed Mustaque would submit before us
that the petitioner is prepared to deposit the admitted
arrears of rent within one month from today before the Rent
Control Court. We record the above submission of the
learned counsel.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb