ABDUL NAVAS AND OTHERS v. S.N. SATI

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN** **THURSDAY ,THE 06TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 15TH BHADRA, 1940** **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-09-2017 IN RCA 3/2016 of THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03-12-2015 IN RC(OP) 9/2005 of THE RENT CONTROL COURT, PUNALUR** ## **REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 ABDUL NAVAS, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL REHMAN, MANGALATHU BUNGALOW, NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM-689695.** - **2 ABDUL NAJEEB, AGED 61 YEARS, KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU, MANCHALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM-689695.** - **3 ABDUL RAFEEK, AGED 55 YEARS, KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU, MANCHALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM-689695.** - **4 ABDUL NAJIMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU, MANCHALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM-689695.** - **5 SHAMLA BEEGUM, AGED 45 YEARS, KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU, MANCHALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM-689695.** - **6 SHALEEM BEEGUM, AGED 41 YEARS, KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU, MANCHALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM-689695.** **BY ADVS.SRI. K.S. HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI. GEORGE MATHEW SRI. M.D. SASIKUMARAN SRI. SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN SRI. SUNIL KUMAR A.G** **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** ## **-:2:-** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **S.N.SATI, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANAN VAIDHYAN, S.N.SADANAM, PATHIRIKKAL, PATHANAPURAM-689695.** **BY ADV. SRI. A.R. DILEEP** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** **-:3:-** ## **O R D E R** ## **K. Harilal,J.** The revision petitioners herein are the petitioners in I.A. No.1820 of 2010 in R.C.(OP) No.09 of 2005 of the Rent Control Court, Punalur and appellants in R.C.A. No.03 of 2016 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam. They are the respondents/tenants before the Rent Control Court. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application was filed by the revision petitioners herein as petitioners, under Section 11(2)(c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 _(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')_ . 2. The respondent herein, who is the landlord in the Rent Control Petition, filed objection, contending that the revision petitioners have not deposited the arrears of rent, as contemplated under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. After considering the objection and the statements of accounts shown in the petition, the Rent **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** ## **-:4:-** Control Court dismissed the said petition, on a finding that the petitioners have not remitted the arrears of rent, as contemplated under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. Though they have filed the aforesaid appeal, the Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Thus, the concurrent findings, whereby the application filed under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act stands dismissed, are assailed in this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the tenants, who filed the revision before this Court under Section 20 of the Act would get 30 days' time to remit the arrears of rent, despite the dismissal of the revision _in limine,_ without admitting it on the files. In order to support the aforesaid legal proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioners cited the decision reported in _**Chandrika**_ **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** ## **-:5:-** ## _**Amma v. Mohammed**_ [1984 KLT 677] 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, if the revision was dismissed _in limine_ , at the time of admission, the order passed in revision is not binding on the opposite party, to whom no notice was issued in revision. Therefore, the tenant will not get 30 days' time provided under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, to deposit the arrears of rent. Further, it is submitted that the decision of this Court in _**Chandrika Amma**_ 's case (supra) stands overruled by the Full Bench decision of this Court in _**Thambi v. Mathew and another**_ [AIR 1988 Ker 48(FB)]. Therefore, in the instant case, the petitioners will not get 30 days' time, as contemplated under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, for remitting the arrears of rent, after the dismissal of the revision petition _in limine_ . 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submits that, while passing the order in revision, dismissing the revision petition, ## **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** ## **-:6:-** this Court has specifically granted 30 days' time to deposit balance of the arrears of rent. Therefore, the revision petitioners are entitled to get 30 days time from the date of dismissal of the revision petition filed before this Court. 7. The learned counsel drew our attention to the operative portion of the aforesaid judgment. Going by the order passed by this Court in R.C.R. No.335 of ## 2010, this Court held as follows: _“Of course, any order of eviction passed under Section 11(2) (b) is tentative in the sense that the same can be got vacated by making requisite deposits and filing application under Section 11(2) (c). It was submitted that arrears of rent quantified by the statutory authorities have been deposited to the extent of Rs.50%. It is open to the revision petitioners to deposit the balance also and get the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) vacated”._ 8. In view of the aforesaid finding, we find that the revision petitioners had been given an opportunity to deposit the balance of the arrears of rent, under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, on the basis of the submission from the revision petitioners that they have **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** **-:7:-** deposited 50% of the amount quantified by the statutory authorities under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. 9. It is true that in _**Thambi'**_ s case (supra), this Court has held that the proposition laid down in _**Chandrika Amma**_ 's case (supra) is not correct. But, in the instant case, we find that in the order passed in revision, this Court has granted an opportunity to the revision petitioners to deposit the balance of the arrears of rent invoking the tenant's right under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. No appeal was filed challenging the said order granting an opportunity to the petitioners to invoke the tenant's right under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. Even though the Full Bench has overruled _**Chandrika Amma**_ 's case (supra), this Court is not inclined to re-write the order passed in the earlier revision petition, as such an opportunity was given considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, one month time should have been granted to the revision petitioners to deposit the ## **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** ## **-:8:-** balance 50% of the entire arrears, if he had already deposited 50% before 29.10.2010, as submitted before this Court. Therefore, two questions are to be considered by the Rent Control Court as given below: - _(i)whether the petitioners had deposited or paid 50% of the amount quantified to him under Section 11(2)(b) before 29[th] October, 2010, the date of disposal of earlier R.C.R. No.335 of 2010._ - _(ii)whether the petitioners had deposited the balance amount, as provided under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act, within one month from 29.10.2010, as directed by this Court._ 10. Further, we noticed that the revision petitioners have filed I.A. No.1820 of 2010 along with I.A. No.1835 of 2010 and I.A. No.1835 of 2010 was filed to condone the delay of four days in filing I.A. No.1820 of 2010. I.A. No.1820 of 2010 was filed to deposit arrears of rent to get the order of eviction ## **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** ## **-:9:-** vacated under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. It is true that no appeal was filed challenging the order dismissing I.A. No.1835 of 2010. But, we have gone through the reasonings, whereby I.A. No.1835 of 2010 stands dismissed. The said application was filed to condone the delay of four days in filing petition under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. In the petition, it was stated that the Appellate Authority passed the judgment dismissing the appeal on 13.09.2010 and they filed I.A. No.1804 of 2010 under Section 11(2)(c) on 13.09.2010. Indisputably, they ought to have filed the said application on or before 12.09.2010. According to them, 10[th] September,2010 to 12[th] September,2010 were holidays. Therefore, they filed the application on the next working day after the holidays. But, unfortunately, there was some mistake in the calculation of the arrears of amount. Therefore, they have withdrawn the said application and filed I.A. No.1820 of 2010 on 16.09.2010, seeking permission to ## **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** ## **-:10:-** deposit the arrears of rent, invoking Section 11(2)(c) of the Act with I.A. No.1835 of 2010 to condone four days delay in filing I.A. No.1820 of 2010. But, those applications were dismissed. A challan application was also filed on 16.09.2010. Those applications were dismissed on a finding that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay. We are unable to agree with the findings of the Rent Control Court. On an analysis of the sequences of events and the reasons stated by the revision petitioners, we find that there was no wilful latches or negligence from the part of the revision petitioners in filing the petition under Section 11(2)(c) on 13.09.2010 only. Since 10.09.2010 to 12.09.2010 were holidays, they made an attempt to deposit the rent on the next day after the holidays. Therefore, considering the _bona fides_ of the reasons stated for delay, the Rent Control Court should have allowed the petitioners to invoke the right under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. In the above view, four **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** ## **-:11:-** days delay in filing I.A.No.1835/2010 will stand condoned. Consequently, I.A.No.1820/2010 will stand in the order, as if it was filed in time. 11. In the above view, the parties are directed to file afresh statement of accounts stating the amount due to the respondent and amount deposited by them before the dates referred to in the questions raised above. If the revision petitioners have deposited the arrears of rent within the dates specified in the questions referred above, certainly, they are entitled to get the order passed under Section 11(2)(b) vacated, under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. The Rent Control Court is directed to pass orders afresh on the basis of the statements to be filed by the parties, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the statement of accounts from both parties and the parties are directed to file a statement of accounts within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ## **RCRev..No. 89 of 2018** ## **-:12:-** This Rent Control Revision is disposed of accordingly. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand closed. **Sd/-** **K.HARILAL JUDGE** **Sd/ANNIE JOHN JUDGE** DST/Bb //True copy// P.A. To Judge