Loading...

Winner The Oven Fresh vs E.V.Seleena on 5 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Winner The Oven Fresh vs E.V.Seleena on 5 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  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/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information