Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 214 (KER)

M. Ramesh v. Vaniyapatta Safeena

2020-02-19

C.S.DIAS, K.HARILAL

body2020
ORDER : K. Harilal, J. 1. The revision petitioner herein is the tenant, who is confronting with a summary order of eviction passed under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The respondents/landlord had preferred R.C.P. No.171 of 2015 against the petitioner/tenant seeking an order of eviction of the petition schedule building on the grounds of Section 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. 2. During the pendency of the said RCP, the respondents/landlord had preferred an application under Section 12 of the Act, seeking an order directing the revision petitioner/tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent. According to the respondents/landlord, the rent at the rate of Rs. 750/- month is in arrears from May, 2015 onwards. The revision petitioner/tenant filed a counter statement admitting that there is arrears of rent, which is liable to be paid by him to the respondents/landlord. But calculation shown in that petition is not correct. Till the month of March, 2015, the respondents/landlord had issued receipts for payment of rent. But, in the subsequent five months, the respondents/landlord neglected to issue receipts. He denied the allegation that he wilfully kept the rent in arrears. According to the revision petitioner/tenant, the respondents/landlords did not receive the rent from him. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 3. After considering the aforesaid rival pleadings, the court below allowed the application and directed the revision petitioner/tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent to the respondents/landlord. But, the revision petitioner/tenant failed to pay the admitted arrears of rent within the time frame. Consequently, the Rent Control Court passed an order stopping the proceedings and directing the revision petitioner/tenant to give vacant possession of the petition schedule room to the respondents/landlord. This order is under challenge in this revision. 4. Though the revision petitioner/tenant had preferred an appeal, the Appellate Authority also confirmed the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. This revision petition is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the findings, whereby the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 12 of the Act and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 6. This revision petition is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the findings, whereby the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under Section 12 of the Act and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 6. Going by the counter statement filed by the revision petitioner/tenant in RCP No. 171/2015, we find that he fairly admitted that "it is true that there is arrears in rent, which is liable to be paid by the revision petitioner/tenant to the respondents/landlord". But the calculation shown in the petition is not correct. What is wrong in calculation is not specifically pleaded in the counter statement. It gives rise to an inference that the challenge against the calculation is made without bona fides. After admitting the arrears of rent, again the revision petitioner/tenant turned round and pleaded that the respondents/landlord did not receive rent from the revision petitioner/tenant. It follows that the revision petitioner/tenant has not disputed the rate of rent or the period of default. In view of the admission from the part of the revision petitioner/tenant himself, on 31.01.2018, the Rent Control Court passed an order directing the revision petitioner/tenant to pay the entire admitted arrears on or before 28.02.2018 and to continue payments of future rent. It is also specified that on failure to comply with the order, eviction would be directed. As the revision petitioner/tenant has not paid rent despite two more postings on 07.03.2018 and 09.03.2018, the Rent Control Court stopped the proceedings and issued direction to the revision petitioner/tenant to surrender the vacant possession of the building within one month from the date of the order. 7. As per Section 12(1) of the Act, no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by the landlord under Section 11 of the Act shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that Section, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Rent Control Court all the arrears of rent admitted by him. 8. In the instant case, the revision petitioner/tenant has not disputed the averments in the interlocutory application regarding arrears of rent. So, the Rent Control Court is justified in finding that the arrears of rent from May, 2017 is admitted by the revision petitioner/tenant. 9. 8. In the instant case, the revision petitioner/tenant has not disputed the averments in the interlocutory application regarding arrears of rent. So, the Rent Control Court is justified in finding that the arrears of rent from May, 2017 is admitted by the revision petitioner/tenant. 9. Going by the impugned order, we further find that the Rent Control Court has granted an opportunity to pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent, within four weeks or to show cause against non-payment of arrears of rent. But the revision petitioner/tenant has not paid the arrears of rent nor has he shown any cause against non-payment. Though, four weeks granted by the Rent Control Court had expired on 28.02.2018, the case was again posted to 07.03.2018 and 09.03.2018 for providing opportunity to pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent. But, he failed to pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent. In the above context, the Rent Control Court is justified in passing an order directing the revision petitioner/tenant to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order under challenge. This revision petition fails and is dismissed.