Midhun v. Aliamma Joy

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA** **FRIDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943** ## **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 27.02.2021 AND 08.04.2021 IN R.C.P.No.3 of 2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF COURT), CHALAKUDY.** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **==> picture [84 x 120] intentionally omitted <==** **MIDHUN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. MARTIN, NETTIKADAN HOUSE, KARAYAMPARAMABU KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.** **BY ADVS. LINDONS C.DAVIS SMT.E.U.DHANYA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **==> picture [83 x 67] intentionally omitted <==** **ALIAMMA JOY, AGED 78 YEARS,** **W/O. LATE JOY, PYNADATH HOUSE, ANGAMALY KARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK 683572** **THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **::2::** ## **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Chalakudy, a petition dated 10.03.2020 (Ext.P1) filed by the respondent herein-landlady under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking an order of eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule building. The landlady filed I.A.No.1 of 2020, a petition dated 06.07.2020 (Ext.P2), under Section 12(1) and (3) of the Act, seeking an order directing the tenant to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, in respect of the petition schedule building, and in case of failure on the part of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent, an order directing him to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlady. The tenant filed an objection dated 06.01.2021 (Ext.P3) in I.A. No.1 of 2020. The landlady filed a statement dated 10.02.2021 (Ext.P4), showing the arrears of rent payable. The Rent Control Court, by proceedings dated 27.02.2021 (Ext.P5), directed the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent, failing which his defence will be struck off. The proceedings dated 27.02.2021 reads thus; **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** “Rs.10,000/- being paid today. The respondent is directed to clear off all admitted arrears of rent, failing which his defence will be struck off. Referred to mediation. If not settled, call on 08.04.2021.” 2. On 15.03.2021, the tenant filed a statement dated 15.03.2021 (Ext.P6), wherein it is admitted that an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is due towards arrears of rent, as on 01.03.2021. On 08.04.2021, the Rent Control Court issued another proceedings (Ext.P7), which reads thus; “Admitted amount of rent of Rs.1,40,000/- not deposited as ordered on 27.02.2021. For hearing 07.05.2021.” 3. Feeling aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P7 proceedings of the Rent Control Court, the petitioner-tenant is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. On 04.05.2021, when this original petition came up for admission, this court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent. This Court granted an interim stay of further proceedings in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020, on condition that the petitioner-tenant deposits Rs.1,40,000/- before the Rent Control Court towards arrears of rent, within a period of three weeks. 5. On 30.06.2021, when this original petition came **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** up for consideration, despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent. The petitioner-tenant filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking extension of time for payment of Rs.1,40,000/-, in terms of the order of this Court dated 04.05.2021. The said application was accompanied by C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2021 to condone the delay of three days. Those applications were allowed by the order dated 30.06.2021 and the tenant was granted extension of time up to 02.07.2021 for payment of Rs.1,40,000/-. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionertenant. Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent-landlady. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Exts.P5 and P7 proceedings of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020, issued in the purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant would contend that, since the tenant did not admit arrears of rent in Ext.P3 objection filed in I.A. No.1 of 2020, the Rent Control Court went wrong in directing the tenant, vide Ext.P5 proceedings, to clear off the ‘admitted’ arrears of rent, failing which his defence **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** will be struck off. There is no order of the Rent Control Court under Section 12(1) of the Act, specifying the admitted arrears of rent. No time limit, as prescribed in the proviso to Section 12(2), is specified in Ext.P5 proceedings. After Ext.P5, the tenant filed Ext.P6 statement, wherein it is admitted that an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is due towards arrears of rent, as on 01.03.2021. On 08.04.2021, since there was no settlement in mediation, the tenant requested permission of the Rent Control Court to pay off the admitted arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,40,000/-. However, the Rent Control Court declined the said request, and recorded in Ext.P7 proceedings that the admitted rent amounting to Rs.1,40,000/- is not deposited, as ordered on 27.02.2021. 9. Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. As per Section 12(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 **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **::6::** 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 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. As per Section 12(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). As per the proviso to sub-section (2), 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. 10. As per Section 12(3) of the Act, 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 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. As per Section 12(4), when **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **::7::** 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 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. 11. Therefore, Section 12(1) of the Act enjoins a tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Control Court, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building, up to the date of payment or deposit, and continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, in order to contest that application for eviction before the Rent Control Court. Section 12(2) enjoins a tenant to pay or deposit the admitted rent under sub-section (1), within such time as the court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed. The time fixed by the court for the deposit of the arrears of rent and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than that specified in the proviso to Section 12(2). If **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **::8::** any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court 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, as provided under Section 12(3) of the Act. 12. In view of the statutory mandate of Section 12(1) of the Act, in an application filed by the landlord under Section 12 of the Act, the Rent Control Court has to order payment of arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the petition schedule building, up to the date of payment or deposit, and the tenant shall also be ordered to continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court for eviction under Section 11 of the Act. In case, after an order under Section 12(1) of the Act, the tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court 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, under Section 12(3) of the Act. 13. In the instant case, Ext.P5 proceedings of the Rent Control Court is cryptic in nature inasmuch as no reason has **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **::9::** been stated therein for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act. A reading of the provisions under Section 12(1) of the Act makes it explicitly clear that, before issuing direction under the said sub-section, the Rent Control Court has to arrive at a finding that the tenant has admitted the arrears of rent due in respect of the building in question. A cryptic order passed by the Rent Control Court, like the one, which is impugned in this revision petition, virtually makes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as, such an order which does not disclose any reasons will be of little assistance to this Court, while analysing the reasoning essential to such a decision. 14. In **Woolcombers of India Ltd. v.** **Woolcombers Workers Union [(1974) 3 SCC 318]** the Apex Court, while considering the challenge made against an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, held that the giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. Firstly, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **==> picture [37 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Secondly, it is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Thirdly, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to the Apex Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the court. The court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. 15. In **English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd. [(2002) 1 WLR 2409]** the Court of Appeal held that, a judicial decision which affected the substantive rights of the parties should be reasoned, although some judicial decisions, e.g. interlocutory case management decisions, did not require reasons; that, while a judge was not obliged to deal with every argument or identify or **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **==> picture [37 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** explain every factor which weighed with him, the issues the resolution of which were vital to his conclusion should be identified and the manner in which he resolved them briefly but clearly explained, so that the judgment enabled the parties and any appellate tribunal readily to analyse the reasoning essential to his decision. 16. In **Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax** ## **Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785]** the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. 17. In **Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax** **Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785]** the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** ## **::12::** ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. 18. In **Shukla and Brothers** the Apex Court held further that, a litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **==> picture [37 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment. 19. In the above view of the matter we find no reasons to sustain Ext.P5 proceedings dated 27.02.2021 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020 and also Ext.P7 proceedings dated 08.04.2021. The Rent Control Court has to consider I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020 filed by the respondent-landlady afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon, without any delay. 20. In the result, this original petition is allowed by setting aside Exts.P5 and P7 proceedings of the Rent Control Court, Chalakudy, in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020, and directing the said court to consider I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020 filed by the respondent-landlady afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 21. In terms of the order of this Court dated 04.05.2021, as modified by the order dated 30.06.2021 in **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **==> picture [37 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** I.A.No.1 of 2021, the petitioner-tenant had deposited Rs.1,40,000/- before the Rent Control Court, on 01.07.2021. The Rent Control Court shall permit the landlady to withdraw the said amount, which is lying in court deposit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **M.R. ANITHA JUDGE** MIN **O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021** **::15::** ## **APPENDIX** |**APPENDIX**|**APPENDIX**| |---|---| |**PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS**|| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**A COPY OF RCP NO.3/2020 FILED BEFORE THE**<br>**RENT CONTROL COURT, CHALAKUDY**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**A TRUE IA NO. 1/2020 IN RCP NO. 3/2020**<br>**BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHALAKUDY**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE**<br>**PETITIONER HEREIN IN IA NO. 1/2020 IN RCP**<br>**NO. 3/2020 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT,**<br>**CHALAKUDY**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ARREARS**<br>**FILED BY THE LANDLADY DATED 10-02-2021**<br>**FILED BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT,**<br>**CHALAKUDY**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27-02-**<br>**2021 IN RCP NO. 3/2020 OF RENT CONTROL**<br>**COURT, CHALAKUDAY**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ARREARS**<br>**OF RENT FILED BY THE TENANT (PETITIONER**<br>**HEREIN) ON 15-03-2021 BEFORE THE RENT**<br>**CONTROL COURT, CHALAKKUDAY.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08-**<br>**04-2021 IN RCP NO. 3/2020 OF RENT CONTROL**<br>**COURT, CHALAKUDAY.**|