IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 181 of 2008()
1. WINNER THE OVEN FRESH, STAR BUILDINGS,
... Petitioner
2. K.P.NAZAR, AGED 39 YEARS, MANAGING
Vs
1. E.V.SELEENA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN
For Respondent :SRI.LEO GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :05/08/2008
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R. NO. 181 OF 2008 & CAVEAT O.P. 525/2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2008.
O R D E R
Raman, J.
Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought by the
landlord under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). During the
course of the proceedings, on an application made by the landlady as I.A.
2473/2007, the tenant was directed to pay or deposit the admitted arrears
within 30 days and also to pay future arrears within 15 days of such default,
after entering a finding that rent from 2007 is in arrears. The accumulated
arrears were, however, deposited only later after the expiry of the time
granted by the court. Still further the tenant did not continue to deposit the
rent which fell due every month. Hence the trial court passed an order
under Section 12(3) of the Act by staying all further proceedings and
ordering eviction.
2. The trial court, as per its order dated 13.9.2007 found that though
the tenant was asked to show cause for not proceeding under Section 12(3)
RCR 181/2008 :2:
of the Act, no cause was shown and he also absented from court on
13.9.2007 when the case was taken up. It was in these circumstances, that
the order of eviction was passed under Section 12(3) of the Act. Aggrieved
thereby, the tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The
appellate authority raised and considered the point as to the justification or
otherwise of granting eviction under Section 12(3) of the Act by stopping
all further proceedings, by the trial court. The appellate court noticed that
on 4.4.2007, the Rent Control court passed an order in I.A. 2473/2007
under Section 12, directing the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent
within 30 days and to pay the future arrears which may fall due within 15
days of such default. There is no case for the tenant that he has paid the
subsequent rent or deposited the same on or before the date as fixed in the
order passed by the court. Even if he had paid or deposited the amount
after the order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act, it will not in any way
help him to vacate the order so passed. This position has been made in clear
terms in the decision reported in Devi v. Indu (1999(3) KLT 434). In
Narayanan v. Vinod (2004(3) KLT 955) this Court held that when admitted
arrears of rent has not been disputed by the tenant, then there is no necessity
of issuing any separate notice enabling him to show sufficient cause for
committing default. As a matter of fact, the section itself is very clear that
RCR 181/2008 :3:
when the admitted arrears of rent is not paid or deposited, it is for the tenant
to invoke the provision and then explain the circumstances under which he
did not make the deposit. Here, the Rent Control Court had already passed
an order directing the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent within 30
days. He was also directed to deposit/pay the subsequent arrears within 15
days from the date on which it fell due. Therefore, this is a composite order
directing to deposit the arrears of rent as found as on the date of the order as
also a direction to pay future rent within 30 days from the date on which it
fell due. It is not the case for the tenant that he paid or deposited the dues
within 15 days as directed by the Rent Control Court. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, he made a statement on 13.9.2007 itself
explaining the circumstances under which he did not deposit the amount.
But the court below did not consider the same while passing the order. We
have considered this argument. The tenant has no case that he has
deposited the amount as on the date on which the order was passed and even
in the explanation he has offered, he only stated that it is due to an
inadvertent omission that rent was not paid. The rent from July was in
arrears and even according to him, it was only deposited in October. When
every month rent has to be paid, it is improbable and impossible to believe
that non payment for all these months is due to an inadvertent omission on
RCR 181/2008 :4:
his part. Further, within a reasonable time he did not come with any
explanation also. It was only when the landlord pressed for an order under
Section 12(3) that even a statement was filed, that too, on the date on which
the order was passed under Section 12(3) of the Act. In the circumstances,
we find that the tenant having failed to deposit or pay the amount as
directed by the Rent Control Court in its order, the consequence will follow
and the court below was justified in passing an order under Section 12(3) of
the Act. We find no merit in the contention raised by the revision
petitioner. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(JUDGE)
knc/-
