A. Thajudeen v. Trivandrum Co-operative District Wholesale Society Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1939 ## **RCRev..No. 284 of 2017** AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 45/2016 of RENT CONTROL APPELLANT AUTHORITY-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 05-04-2017 ## **REVISION PETITIONER/** RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER: A.THAJUDEEN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, NOUSHAD MANZIL, KARIKODE, MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV.SRI.K.SUBASHCHANDRA BOSE ## **RESPONDENT** /APPELLANT/PETITIONER: TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE DISTRICT WHOLESALE SOCIETY LTD. NO.4, REGISTERED UNDER THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT WITH REGISTERED OFFICE AT SASTHAMANGALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KUMARI INDU C.K., AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.PHALALOCHANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SREEKAILASAM, PALLICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695018. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR BY ADV. SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN BY ADV. SMT.T.RESHMA BY ADV. SMT.S.SIKKY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **C.T.RAVIKUMAR & B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JJ.** ------------------------------------ R.C.R.No.284 of 2017 -----------------------------------Dated 14[th] November, 2017 ## **ORDER** ## **Ravikumar, J.** A question of seminal importance arises for consideration in this revision petition. A brief narration of the factual position is required to understand and decide the said question. The revision petitioner herein was the respondent in R.C.P.No.42 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The captioned revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority-II, Thiruvananthapuram in R.C.A.No.45 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the impugned order in I.A.No.8952 of 2016 in R.C.P.No.42 of 2016 passed by the Rent Control Court was set aside. As per the impugned judgment, the Rent Control Court was directed to hear both sides on the aforesaid interlocutory application and to pass fresh orders. I.A.No.8952 of 2016 was filed by the respondent herein/the appellant therein, before the Rent Control Court under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short `the Act') for a direction against the revision petitioner herein/the tenant to deposit all arrears of rent within the time to be stipulated by the Court and to direct him to continue to deposit all subsequent rents till the date of RCR.No.284 of 2017 2 disposal of the RCP and in case of failure, to stop all proceedings and to order eviction forthwith. It is the case of the respondent herein that the monthly rent payable by the revision petitioner in respect of the building leased out to him, is 15,000/- and he had committed default₹ in payment. Earlier, as per the directions of the Munssiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram the revision petitioner had deposited 60,000/-₹ towards the arrears of rent for a period of four months. In short, the contention of the respondent herein is that the rent is in arrears from July, 2015 onwards. In the detailed objection filed by the revision petitioner he stoutly denied the allegation of arrears of rent and according to him, he was prompt in payment of rent. It is his further case that the respondent-landlord was not prompt in issuing proper receipts in token of receipt of monthly rent and further that he was prevented from enjoying the tenanted premises and against which O.S.No.1261 of 2015 was instituted before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Obviously, the Rent Control Court had passed an order in I.A.No.8952 of 2016 on 24.11.2016 holding that there is no admitted arrears of rent and consequently, the said interlocutory application was dismissed. It was on being aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.8952 of 2016 that the respondent herein had preferred R.C.A.No.45 of 2016 which culminated in the impugned judgment. RCR.No.284 of 2017 3 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Evidently, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner took up the same contentions which were unsuccessfully raised before the Appellate Authority. It is his specific contention that the landlord had denied amenities and therefore, the tenant is not bound to pay the rent. In other words, the contention is that since the landlord had deprived the tenant the opportunity to enjoy the tenanted premises, by locking the gate and thereby prevented him from having motorable access to the plaint schedule building, he is not liable to pay rent. The learned counsel drew our attention to the order passed by the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.A.No.57 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein against the orders dated 6.11.2015 and 29.3.2016 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.8308 of 2015 in O.S.No.1261 of 2015. In fact, I.A.No.8308 of 2015 was filed under Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX CPC seeking police Protection to unlock the gate in presence of an Advocate Commissioner on the allegation that the landlord/the respondent herein had blocked the motorable access to the plaint schedule property by locking the gate in disobedience and breach of the order of injunction passed by the Munsiff's Court. The respondent did not file any objection and RCR.No.284 of 2017 4 consequently, a direction was given to him to unlock the gate as and when the revision petitioner remits the rent arrears. Further, it was observed therein that the question of affording police protection would be considered in case of violation of the order by the respondent herein. Later, the same I.A. was again moved alleging violation of the order. On 29.3.2016 the Munsiff's Court directed the respondent herein to unlock the gate and held that in case of his failure to comply with the direction the revision petitioner would be entitled to approach the Sub Inspector, Museum Police Station for getting the gate unlocked in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner appointed for that purpose. It was these orders that were challenged in C.M.A.No.57 of 2016. The said C.M.A was dismissed with costs and the appellant therein/the respondent herein was directed to unlock the gate forthwith, failing which the respondent therein/the revision petitioner was granted the right to get it opened with the assistance of police. The contention of the revision petitioner is that despite the order in C.M.A.No.57 of 2016 the respondent-landlord did not unlock the gate and continued to block him from having motorable access to the building in question. In short, it is the contention that in such circumstances, the revision petitioner is not liable to pay rent as he was deprived of enjoyment of the tenanted building. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended RCR.No.284 of 2017 5 that the order in C.M.A.No.57 of 2016 was challenged before this Court by filing O.P.(C)No.1113 of 2017 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court as per order dated 21.3.2017 stayed all the further proceedings pursuant to the judgment in C.M.A.No.57 of 2016. It is submitted that the said Original Petition is still pending and the said interim order is also still in force. This aspect is not at all disputed. 4. As noticed hereinbefore, the judgment impugned in this revision petition is the judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-II, Thiruvananthapuram in R.C.A.No.45 of 2016 arising from an order passed by the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.8952 of 2016 in R.C.P.No.42 of 2016. The said interlocutory application was filed under Section 12 of the Act with the prayer for a direction to the revision petitioner herein to pay the arrears of rent and also to continue to pay the rent till the disposal of the RCP and in case of his failure to do so, to stop the proceedings and to order for eviction. We have also taken note of the fact that the allegation of arrears of rent as also the prayers were resisted by the revision petitioner/respondent therein contending that the landlord/the appellant had denied amenities and therefore, he is not liable to pay rent. 5. In view of the rival contentions and the contextual situation, it is only relevant to refer to Section 12 of the Act. It reads thus:- RCR.No.284 of 2017 6 **“12. Payment of deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction.-** (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that section, or to prefer an appeal under section 18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment of or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be. (2) The deposit under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time as the Court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed for the service of notice referred to in sub-section (4): Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the order and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than two weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due. (3) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant show sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put landlord in possession of the building. (4) When any deposit is made under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord in the prescribed manner and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as RCR.No.284 of 2017 7 may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority in that behalf.” 6. A bare perusal of Section 12 of the Act would reveal that a tenant will not be entitled to contest a petition unless he deposits the arrears of rent admitted by him and continues to deposit or to pay the rent subsequently becomes due. In short, a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that payment of rent to the landlord is the primary duty and obligation of the tenant and unless he discharges that obligation he would not be entitled to contest the petition filed under Section 11 or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act would reveal that in case the tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent payable in terms of subsection(1) thereunder, within the period fixed or granted by the Court for doing so, the Rent Control Court or the Appellant Authority, as the case may be, should, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. In other words, a bare perusal of Section 12(3) would reveal that it provides the consequence of non-deposit of admitted arrears of the rent as contemplated under Section 12(1) of the Act within the time fixed under sub-section (2) thereof. The rival contentions as expatiated RCR.No.284 of 2017 8 hereinbefore would reveal that the admitted monthly rent of the building in question is 15,000/-. The case of the respondent herein is₹ that the revision petitioner had committed default in payment of arrears from July, 2015 onwards. As noticed hereinbefore, the contention of the revision petitioner is that since he was deprived of enjoyment of the tenanted premises by the landlord by locking the gate and thus, prevented him from having motorable access to the tenanted premises he is not liable to pay rent. Thus, obviously, the question is whether the aforesaid reason could be accepted as a sufficient cause for nondeposit for the purpose of Section 12(3) of the Act ? 7. In the contextual situation, it is apposite to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Sankaran Pillai (dead) by LRs** v. **V. P. Venuguduswami and others (AIR 1999 SC 3060)** . That was a case where the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the meaning of the expression `sufficient cause' employed in Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. We will extract Section 11(4) of the said Act to see whether it is paramateria to Section 12(3) of the Act. It reads thus:- “ **11(4)** If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.” RCR.No.284 of 2017 9 A comparison of these provisions would undoubtedly reveal that Section 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is paramateria to Section 12(3) of the Act. In **Sankaran Pillai's** case (supra) the tenant did not deposit arrears of rent in the Rent Control Court in compliance with its order and consequently, an order of eviction was passed. Even thereafter, the tenant did not move any application before the Rent Controller for revoking its earlier order of striking out the defence as he could not deposit the arrears of rent. In fact, in that case, the respondent had denied the landlord-tenant relationship before the Rent Control Court. Ultimately, when the matter reached the Apex Court he took up the plea that he was under the mistaken belief that he was not required to deposit the arrears in view of the fact that he was denying the landlord - tenant relationship. The Apex Court held that the expression `sufficient cause' has to be construed liberally to do substantial justice between the parties and at the same time, it should be understood that the term `sufficient cause' implies an element of sincerity, _bona fide_ and reasonableness. Furthermore, it was held that it is incumbent on the tenant who has not deposited the rent within time, as directed by the Controller to establish that non-deposit of the rent was beyond his control and there was no element of negligence or inaction or lack of _bona fides_ on his part in not RCR.No.284 of 2017 10 depositing the rent within time. True that, in the case on hand, obviously, the revision petitioner is not denying the tenant-landlord relationship. Evidently, denial of tenant-landlord relationship was not accepted as a sufficient reason for condoning the default for the purpose of Section 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, by the Apex Court. 8. We will now, consider the factual position obtained in the case on hand. Admittedly, in this case, the Rent Control Court dismissed I.A.No.8952 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein viz., the landlord under Section 12 of the Act seeking a direction to the revision petitioner-tenant to deposit all arrears of rent within the time stipulated by the court and to direct him to continue to deposit all subsequent rents till the disposal of the rent control petition and in case of his failure to do so, to stop all proceedings and to order eviction forthwith. It is relevant to note that, in this case, there is absolutely no dispute regarding the monthly rent payable and admittedly, it is 15,000/-. In₹ the rent control petition the case of the respondent herein was that the rent at the aforesaid rate was paid by the revision petitioner only up to January, 2015. It is also stated that as per the directions of Munsiff's Court, Thiruvanathapuram the revision petitioner deposited 60,000/-₹ towards the rent due for four months and therefore, the total arrears of RCR.No.284 of 2017 11 rent comes to 2,25,000/-. True that, the revision petitioner had₹ refuted the allegation of arrears of rent in the objection filed before the Rent Control Court. According to him, he was prompt in remitting monthly rent and the respondent herein/the landlord was not prompt in issuing proper receipts therefor. Even after taking such specific contentions he had also taken a seemingly contradictory contention that the landlord had prevented him from enjoying all source of motorable access to the shop room and thereby virtually obstructed him from enjoying the tenanted premises and as such, he is not liable to pay rent. What it would indicate ? In O.S.No.1261 of 2015 instituted by the revision petitioner before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram alleging deprival of opportunity to enjoy the tenanted premises by locking its gate he moved I.A.No.8308 of 2015 and we have already adverted to the orders passed thereon by the Munsiff's Court on 6.11.2015 and 29.3.2016 and also the judgment in C.M.A.No.57 of 2016 passed by the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram viz., arising from those orders in I.A.No.8308 of 2015. It has been produced in this revision petition as Annexure-I. A close scrutiny of Annexure-I order would reveal that virtually, the Munsiff's Court had ordered to unlock the gate in case there is no failure in payment of arrears of rent. Before proceeding further we are of the view that it is RCR.No.284 of 2017 12 only apropos to refer to ground `I' taken up by the revision petitioner in the captioned revision petition. It reads thus:- “The lower appellate court ought to have found that the landlord is not entitled to get rent if he preventing the tenant from enjoying the premises and such a landlord is not entitled to get the benefit under section 11(2)(b) or section 12 of the Act.” Thus, in short, it is evident that the contention of the revision petitioner is that in case a landlord interferes with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant such a landlord is not entitled to get rent and also not entitled to get the benefit under Section 11 (2)(b) or under Section 12B of the Act. Evidently, this contention was repelled by the appellate authority as per the impugned judgment. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned judgment are relevant in the contextual situation. The appellate authority took note of the statement of objection submitted by the revision petitioner herein in R.C.P.No.42 of 2016 and found that the existence of arrears of rent from January, 2015 onwards, was stoutly denied by the revision petitioner. At the same time, the appellate authority found that in the statement of objection what was stated is that the revision petitioner had tendered an amount of 60,000/- as₹ rent for the months of March to June, 2015. The appellant did not accept the same and hence the said amount was remitted in Munsiff's Court. Before the appellate authority as also before the Rent Control RCR.No.284 of 2017 13 Court, evidently, the revision petitioner did not have a case that monthly rent was paid from the month of July, 2015 onwards. Admittedly, the Rent Control Petition was filed only in the year 2016. It appears from the impugned judgment that before the Rent Control Court as also before the appellate authority the revision petitioner herein had no case that there was no arrears of rent, after June, 2015. Even if it is taken that arrears of rent till June, 2015 was paid before the appellate authority evidently, contentions against ground `I', as extracted hereinbefore, would reveal arrears of rent. This fact is also evident from paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment. Essentially, the contention of the revision petitioner is that the landlord had interfered with the amenities being enjoyed by him by locking the gate and thereby he has been depriving him from motorable access to the building in question. As noticed hereinbefore, to redress the grievance regarding the said action the revision petitioner had instituted O.S.No.1261 of 2015. We will deal with the said aspect a little later. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to Section 13 of the Act which deals with the remedies available in case the landlord interferes with the amenities enjoyed by a tenant. It also deals with the proceedings to be followed in an application moved under the said section by the tenant. For a proper understanding of the position of law RCR.No.284 of 2017 14 it is only relevant to extract the said provision which reads thus:- “ **13. Landlord not to interfere with amenities enjoyed by the tenant.** - (1) No landlord shall, without just or sufficient cause, cut off or withhold any of the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. (2) A tenant in occupation of a building may, if the landlord has contravened the provisions of this section, make an application to the Accommodation Controller complaining of such contravention. (3) If the tenant satisfies the Accommodation Controller that the amenities were cut off or withheld with a view to compel him to vacate the building or to pay enhanced rent, the Accommodation Controller may pass an interim order directing the landlord to restore the amenities immediately, pending the enquiry referred to in sub-section (4). **Explanation.** - An interim order may be passed under this sub-section without giving notice to the landlord. Any interim order so passed may be modified or canceled by final order and the Accommodation Controller may give effect to such modification or cancellation. (4) If the Accommodation Controller on inquiry finds that the tenant has been in enjoyment of the amenities and that they were cut off or withhled by the landlord without just or sufficient cause, he shall make an order directing the landlord to restore such amenities and for the purpose of enforcement of such orders, the Accommodation Controller may exercise all the powers of a Civil Court in executing a decree for injunction or for specific performance. (5) The Accommodation Controller may in his discretion direct that compensation not exceeding fifty rupees- (a) be paid to the landlord by the tenant, if the application under sub-section (2) was made RCR.No.284 of 2017 15 frivolously or vexatiously. (b) be paid to the tenant by the landlord, if the landlord had cut off or withheld the amenities frivolously or vexatiously. (6)(a) A tenant or landlord aggrieved by an order passed by the Accommodation Controller under this section may within thirty days from the date of receipt of such order prefer an appeal in writing to the District Collector within whose jurisdiction the building in respect of which the order appealed against is passed is situate and he shall pass such orders on the appeal as he may deem fit. (b) The District Collector shall have the powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of the matters specified in clauses (a) to (k) of sub-section (1) of section 23, for the purpose of disposing of an appeal under this sub-section.” 9. It is evident from Section 13 of the Act that it provides for filing an application to the Accommodation Controller for restoration of amenities. The provision would reveal that the Accommodation Controller as also the appellate authority thereunder viz., the District Collector got the powers of a Civil Court while dealing with such application/appeal. Evidently, in this case, instead of resorting to the said efficacious remedy the revision petitioner had approached the Munsiff's Court by filing O.S.No.1261 of 2015 seeking the aforementioned reliefs. True that, in I.A.No.8308 of 2015 in O.S.No.1261 of 2015 the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram RCR.No.284 of 2017 16 passed orders requiring the respondent herein-landlord to restore the amenities in the manner as mentioned hereinbefore and the said order was virtually confirmed by the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram as per its judgment dated 10.3.2017 in C.M.A.No.57 of 2016. A perusal of the said order which is produced herein as Annexure-I would reveal that no order of compensation was passed by the Munsiff's Court as also by the District Court and what was ordered is virtually, only to restore the amenities. In other words, the courts below had ordered the respondent herein to unlock the gate and in case of failure on the part of the respondent herein to comply with that direction the right to get it opened with police assistance was given to the revision petitioner. The appellate authority as per the impugned judgment dated 5.4.2017 observed that denial of amenities may be a good cause for claiming compensation and other appropriate remedies. But, that cannot be a reason for contending that the revision petitioner-tenant is not bound to pay rent or to contend that it is a ground for depriving rather, preventing the landlord from seeking statutory benefits flowing from Section 12 of the Act. As noticed hereinbefore, the revision petitioner had taken up a specific ground under ground `I' to the effect that denial of amenities enjoyed by the tenant would deprive the landlord from the entitlement to get rent as also to get the benefit under Section 12 of RCR.No.284 of 2017 17 the Act. Such a ground was taken by the revision petitioner herein evidently for the reason that this contention was not found favour with the appellate authority. It is in this context that we have referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Sankaran Pillai's** case (supra). As noticed hereinbefore, that was a case where the tenant concerned unsuccessfully raised the contention that the denial of existence of landlord-tenant relationship should be taken as a sufficient cause for condoning the default for the purpose of Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act which is paramateria to Section 12 of the Act. We have already found that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the expression `sufficient cause' would imply an element of sincerity, _bona fide_ , and reasonableness. True that, that is a matter to be looked into only if there is an order passed by the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority under sub-section (2) of Section 12 and in case of failure by the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent directed to be paid/deposited. In this case, such a stage has not reached as obviously, I.A.No.8952 of 2016 filed under Section 12 of the Act seeking such a prayer was dismissed by the Rent Control Court and the appellate court had only set it aside and directed the Rent Control Court to hear both sides and pass fresh orders on the said application. In this case, admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the RCR.No.284 of 2017 18 tenancy as also the rate of rent payable. We have also taken note of the fact that there is no consideration by the Rent Control Court, as rightly held by the appellate authority, regarding the existence of any averment taken up by the revision petitioner as to the payment of rent at the aforesaid rate subsequent to June, 2015 rather, from July, 2015 onwards. We are not making any observation regarding the entitlement of the respondent to arrears of rent, if any, prior to that period. But, at the same time, certain aspects revealed from Annexure-I have to be looked into in the contextual situation. The District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Annexure-I judgment in C.M.A.No.57 of 2016 found that there is another gate on the southern side leading to the premises from another road besides the gate on the western side provided, for motorable access to the tenanted shop room, in respect of which O.S.No.1261 of 2015 was filed. That apart, it is evident from the said judgment that the District Court had made an observation regarding the existence of two gates leading the tenanted premises. Of course, the precise case of the revision petitioner is that the gate on the western side is the only motorable way. But, at the same time, the contentions raised by the revision petitioner in the rent control proceedings as also in the proceedings in the aforesaid suit and the appeal arising therefrom would reveal that the existence of tenancy and RCR.No.284 of 2017 19 occupation of the tenanted shop room are not at all disputed by the revision petitioner. As noticed hereinbefore, the rate of rent payable is also not in dispute. In such circumstances and also in the light of Section 13 of the Act and in the absence of any order in O.S.No.1261 of 2015 and in C.M.A.No.57 of 2016 entitling the revision petitioner herein to withhold payment of rent to the respondent how can it be said that the respondent herein is not entitled to resort to appropriate remedy under Section 12 of the Act. We have referred to the aforesaid circumstances as also the position of law solely to conclude the hollowness in the contention of the revision petitioner that he is not liable to pay rent to the respondent-landlord in view of the denial of motorable access to the tenanted premises by locking the gate on the western side. The provisions under Section 13 of the Act would reveal that in case a landlord interferes with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant, the tenant would be having the remedies provided thereunder for getting it restored and also to seek compensation for such deprival of enjoyment of amenities. But, there is nothing in the Act suggesting that in such circumstances despite the occupation of the tenanted building/rooms the tenant is not liable to pay rent owing to the reason of interference with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to hold the contention raised RCR.No.284 of 2017 20 by the revision petitioner herein based on ground `I' and in other words, no reason to interfere with the finding of the appellate authority that denial of amenities would be a good cause only for claiming compensation and other appropriate remedies. But, those would not prevent the landlord from seeking the statutory benefits flowing from Section 12 of the Act. In such circumstances, the appellate authority is perfectly justified in observing that the Rent Control Court did not consider such aspects while dismissing I.A.No.8952 of 2016 in R.C.P.No.42 of 2016 and consequently, in setting it aside and in directing the Rent Control Court to hear both sides on the said application and to pass fresh orders thereon. We may hasten to add that we shall not be understood to have held that there is arrears of rent. In fact, the appellate court had rightly made certain observations regarding the said aspect. The enquiries contemplated under Section 11(2)(b) and Section 12 of the Act on the question of arrears of rent are entirely different. In respect of the enquiry contemplated under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, the question to be considered is whether the tenant is bound to pay the actual arrears. True that, on the other hand, for avoiding an order under Section 12 of the Act the tenant needs to pay the admitted arrears alone. Therefore, the question to be looked into in an application under Section 12, as can be seen from the RCR.No.284 of 2017 21 provisions thereunder, is not only with respect to the arrears of rent prior to the institution of the petition but the liability of payment in respect of rent that becomes due subsequent to the institution of the proceedings. This assumes relevance if the case of the revision petitioner is that he had paid rent only up to 2015 and in case of absence of any case for him that he made payment thereafter, in the light of the fact that the RCP itself was filed in 2016. We have referred to these aspects solely to fortify our view that the appellate authority had not committed any error or illegality in setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.8952 of 2016 in R.C.P.No.42 of 2016 and in directing the Rent Control Court to hear both sides on the aforesaid I.A. and pass fresh orders thereon. Since the said order is perfectly legal, this revision petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- **Judge** **C.T.RAVIKUMAR** Sd/- TKS **B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR Judge** // true copy // Sd/P.S. To Judge