High Court of KeralaDivision BenchThe petition is allowed; Ext.P18 is set aside; ...

Caletal Developers Private Ltd. v. Joy Joseph Chackalackal and Others

Case / Petition Number:OP(RC) No.44 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Anil K. Narendran
  • P. G. Ajithkumar Wednesday
Judgment Date
2022-07-20
Court Decision / Holding
The petition is allowed; Ext.P18 order is set aside. The Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Thrissur is directed to dispose of Ext.P2 afresh, taking into account the rent due for periods post-filings and ensuring compliance with the statutory framework, within six weeks from production of a certified copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition
The petition is allowed; Ext.P18 is set aside; Rent Control Court to decide Ext.P2 afresh within six weeks; directions issued for expeditious disposal as per Abdul Razak P.M. v. K.C. Thomas guidance, under Article 227.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Caletal Developers Private Ltd.
  • Akash Anand

Respondents

  • Joy Joseph Chackalackal
  • Kuriachira P.O.
  • Dr. Vivek Gopinath
  • Sadanandan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Luke J Chirayil
  • • C. L. Joseph (KTYM)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • N. M. Madhu
  • • C. S. Rajani

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, scrutinizes Ext.P18, an order of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff, Thrissur) directing the petitioners to deposit admitted arrears of rent along with interest within four weeks. The petitioners, Caletal Developers Private Ltd. (along with Akash Anand, Managing Director), challenge Ext.P18 on the ground that the amount claimed in Ext.P2 as arrears (Rs. 11,85,823.71) includes interest at 18% from the date of default and that the Ext.P18 directive to deposit that amount with further interest at 6% per annum is illegal and impermissible under the law. The 1st respondent-landlord contends that substantial arrears remain due; he points to Rs.3,30,000 deposited as per a court order and asserts a larger outstanding balance by 2022. The Rent Control Court had initiated IA No. 2 of 2020 under Sec. 12 of the Act, seeking eviction under Sec. 11(2)(b) and determining the arrears; Ext.P2 and Ext.P18 are challenged as being contrary to the statutory scheme. The Court holds Ext.P18 unsustainable, sets it aside, and directs the Rent Control Court to decide Ext.P2 afresh. It cites Abdul Razak P.M. v. K.C. Thomas (2022 (4) KHC 260) to emphasize time-bound disposal of Section 12 matters and to ensure expedition, directing a fresh disposal within six weeks.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 11(2)(b) of the Rent Control ActSection 12 of the Rent Control ActArticle 227 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants submit that Ext.P18 requires deposit of Rs. 11,85,823.71 including interest at 18% from the due date, and Ext.P18 additionally directs interest at 6% per annum. They contend this results in an impermissible and unlawful computation under Section 12 and the Rent Control Act, effectively double-counting interest. They point to the statement in Ext.P2 showing arrears and argue that the 18% default interest, compounded with a further 6% statutory interest, contravenes provisions of law. They urge that Ext.P18 be set aside and Ext.P2 be re-decided in accordance with lawful computation of rent due and permissible interest, with a time-bound disposition.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that there are arrears due and that Ext.P18, while containing an inadvertent miscalculation, did reflect the existence of debt, with Rs.3,30,000 deposited toward arrears. They maintain more than Rs.11 lakhs were due as of mid-2022 and argue for strict enforcement of the deposit order and the statutory obligation under Section 12. They assert that the Rent Control Court should proceed to decide Ext.P2 expeditiously and in a manner consistent with the Act, despite any error in the initial computation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Abdul Razak P.M. v. K.C. Thomas and others2022 (4) KHC 260PositiveCited to emphasize time-bound disposal of Section 12 proceedings and to direct Rent Control authorities to expeditiously finalize pending Rent Control petitions/appeals, reinforcing supervisory jurisdiction.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Caletal Developers Private Ltd. v. Joy Joseph Chackalackal and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944 O.P(RC)NO.44 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2021 IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2020 IN R.C.P.NO.51 OF 2020, ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL** ## **COURT,THRISSUR** ## **PETITIONER/3RD & 1ST RESPONDENTS:** **1 CALETAL DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LTD. TMC XXII/1294, OLD NO.8/409-A ANCHERY DESOM, NADATHARA VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA, PIN - 68006 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.AKASH ANAND AGED 27 YEARS SON OF SRI.KOTTIYATTIL SADANANDAN, SANGEERTHANAM, NEAR KARTHIYANI TEMPLE, AYYANTHOLE DESOM, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680003 2 AKASH ANAND AGED 27 YEARS SON OF SRI. KOTTIYATTIL SADANANDAN SANGEERTHANAM, NEAR KARTHIYANI TEMPLE AYYANTHOLE DESOM AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA, PIN - 680003 BY ADVS. LUKE J CHIRAYIL C.L.JOSEPH (KTYM)** ## **RESPONDENTS/ORIGINAL PETITIONER/2ND &4TH RESPONDENTS:** **1 JOY JOSEPH CHACKALACKAL AGED 63 YEARS SON OF SRI.KIDANGATH CHACKALACKAL JOSEPH, S8, HILIFE ELEGANCE APARTMENTS, PUTHUR ROAD, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,** 2 OP(RC) No.44 of 2022 **KURIACHIRA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 680006 2 DR.VIVEK GOPINATHAN AGED 40 YEARS SON OF SRI.T.A.GLIPNATHAN PARIJATHA, TMC 12/566 AMMANKOVIL SOUTH LANE POOTHOLE DESOM, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK, POOTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN- 68004 NOW RESIDING AT KASTHUBA HOSPITAL UDUPI - HEBRI ROAD, MADHAV NAGAR MANIPAL, KARNATAKA, PIN - 576104 3 SADANANDAN AGED 61 YEARS SON OF SRI.KOTTIYATTIL VELAYUDHAN SANGEERTHANAM, NEAR KARTHIYANI TEMPLE AYYANTHOLE DESOM AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA, PIN - 680003 BY ADVS. N.M.MADHU C.S.RAJANI** **THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 OP(RC) No.44 of 2022 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## Ajithkumar, J The petitioner questions in this original petition filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the legality and correctness of Ext.P18 order. As per that order the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Thrissur directed the petitioner to deposit the admitted arrears of rent of 11,85,823/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of that order. 2. On 28.02.2022, this original petition was admitted and notice was directed to be served on the respondents. The 1[st] respondent-landlord entered appearance through his learned counsel. The other respondents did not choose to appear before the court despite receipt of notice. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent. 4 OP(RC) No.44 of 2022 4. The 1[st] respondent filed RCP No.51 of 2020, a copy of which is Ext.P1 seeking eviction of the petitioners and their co-tenants who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The tenants entered appearance and thereafter, the 1[st] respondent filed IA No.2 of 2020 under Section 12 of the Act, a copy of which is Ext.P2. Statement of the arrears of rent allegedly due was tabulated in Ext.P2 which is as follows: |in Ext.P2 which is as follows:|in Ext.P2 which is as follows:|in Ext.P2 which is as follows:| |---|---|---| |DETAILS OF ARREARS OF MONTHLY RENT TOGETHER WITH INTEREST DUE||| |Rent arrears due from 01.12.2019 till 30.04.2020<br>(5 months) at the rate of Rs.57,200/- (Rupees Fifty<br>Seven Thousand and Two Hundred only) per month|Rs.|286000| |Default Interest for Rs.57,200 (Rupees Fifty Seven<br>Thousand and Two Hundred Only) at the rate of 18%<br>per annum from 01.12.2019 till 10.12.2020|Rs|57656.53| |Rent arrears due from 01.05.2020 till 30.04.2021<br>(12 months) at the rate of Rs.62920.00(Rupees Sixty<br>Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Only) per<br>month|Rs|755040| |Default Interest for Rs.62,920.00(Rupees Sixty Two<br>Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Only) at the rate<br>of 18% per annum from 01.05.2020 till 10.12.2020|Rs|8712718| |Total||Rs.11,85,823.71| 5. The petitioners filed Ext.P5 objection. After considering rival contentions, the Rent Control Court found in Ext.P18 order dated 15.12.2021 that the rent as stated by the 1[st] respondent in Ext.P2 application has admittedly remained due. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 of 2021 was allowed. 5 OP(RC) No.44 of 2022 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that it is evident from the statement of accounts given in Ext.P2 application itself that the amount of Rs.11,85,823/- claimed in it includes interest at the rate of 18% from the date of due. The said amount having been arrived at by adding up interest at the rate of 18% per annum, Ext.P18, insofar it directs to pay 6% interest per annum again, is illegal and incorrect. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent conceded the said impropriety contained in Ext.P18 order. The learned counsel however contended that apart from Rs.3,30,000/- that was deposited by the petitioners towards arrears of rent as per the order of this Court dated 01.04.2022, nothing has been paid towards the arrears of rent. According to the 1st respondent, an amount of more than 11 lakhs is due towards arrears of rent as on 30.06.2022. 7. Inasmuch as the amount ordered to be deposited as per Ext.P18 includes 18% interest from the date of default and the direction is to deposit such an amount along 6 OP(RC) No.44 of 2022 with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum, it goes against the provisions of law. It is incorrect. No further discussion is required to hold that the said order is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. Hence we proceed to set aside Ext. P18 order and further to direct the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Thrissur to decide Ext. P2 application afresh. 8. In **Abdul Razak P.M. v. K.C. Thomas and others [2022 (4) KHC 260],** this Court keeping in mind the object of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, directed all Rent Control Appellate Authorities in the State to ensure time bound disposal of the appeals filed under S.18(1)(b) of the Act, against an order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of the Act. Similarly, all Rent Control Courts/Appellate Authorities in the State were directed to ensure time-bound disposal of the applications filed under Section 12 of the Act, in pending Rent Control Petitions/Rent Control Appeals. 7 OP(RC) No.44 of 2022 9. In the light of the directions contained in the aforesaid decision, the Rent Control Court is obliged to decide the petition under Section 12 of the Act, Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible. Rent Control Court has to take into account the rent fell due for the period subsequent to the date of filing of the application also while disposing of Ext. P2 application. This petition is accordingly allowed and the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff) Thrissur is directed to dispose of Ext.P2 application afresh as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. ## **Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** PV 8 OP(RC) No.44 of 2022 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 44/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS R.C.P. NO. 51 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS I.A. NO. 2 OF 2020 IN R.C.P. NO. 51 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR** - **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 10.06.2020 ISSUED BY ADV. JACOB O. RAPHEAL** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 30.06.2020 ISSUED THROUGH ADV. K. N. SOMAKUMAR & ADV. VISHNU HARI K** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.03.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN** - **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT LIST DATED 03.04.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IS RCOP NO. 51 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR** - **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM 01.04.2015 TO 31.03.2021** - **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF RENT AMOUNT OF RS. 25,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND ONLY)** - **Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 05.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- (RUPEES FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY)** - **Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 09.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF AN** 9 OP(RC) No.44 of 2022 **AMOUNT OF RS. 25,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND ONLY)** - **Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 30.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH ONLY)** - **Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 28.09.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN I.A. NO. 2 OF 2021 IN R.C.P. NO. 51 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR** - **Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 02.04.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.C.P. NO. 51 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE RENT CONTROLLER, THRISSUR** - **Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT REGARDING DETAILS OF RENT WITHOUT INTEREST AND SECURITY DEPOSIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER** - **Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 11.11.2021 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER HEREIN IN I.A. NO. 2 OF 2021 IN R.C.P. NO. 51 OF 2020** - **Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 1095 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR** - **Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 1440 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR** - **Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2021 IN I.A. NO. 2 OF 2020 IN R.C.P. NO. 51 OF 2020**