Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDismissed

RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 (Rajeshwary and others v. V. Ramanandaprabhu)

Case / Petition Number:RCREV. NO. 105 OF 2023; RCREV. NO. 106 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
  • MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
Judgment Date
2023-06-05
Court Decision / Holding
RCRev Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 are dismissed. The High Court upheld the Rent Control Court’s 12(3) order and the Appellate Authority’s dismissal of the tenant’s appeals, finding that sufficient opportunities were provided to the tenant, non‑compliance persisted, and there was no illegality in exercising the power under Section 12(3). The court distinguished, rather than approved, a prior decision (Ramkumar v. Ashok Kumar Jacob) and declined to grant relief to the tenants.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • RAJESWARY
  • BABITHA P.B
  • PREETHI

Respondents

  • V. RAMANANDAPRABHU S/O. VENKITESWARAPRABHU, KRISHNA PRABHU BUILDING, BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI - 682031

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • A.T. Anil Kumar
  • • V. Shyla

Counsels for Respondents

  • • M.P. Ramnath (K/935/1998) Caveator

Case Synopsis & Summary

The two Rent Control Revision petitions (RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023) were filed by three tenant-applicants challenging concurrent orders of eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court had, by its 02.04.2022 order in RCP Nos.182/2020 and 183/2020, directed the tenants to pay arrears from November 2020 at Rs.10,450 per month within 30 days and to clear the balance arrears for May–October 2020, while continuing to remit rent as due. The landlord moved Section 12 applications alleging default; the Rent Control Court, on 27.09.2022, found non‑compliance with the 02.04.2022 directions. Consequently, on 12.03.2023, it stayed further proceedings and directed the tenants to hand over vacant possession within 30 days, invoking Section 12(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the tenants’ appeals. The revision petitions before the Kerala High Court contended that no opportunity to explain the default was provided before passing the 12(3) orders, and that the rent, albeit belatedly, had been paid. The petitioners also argued that the Appellate Authority erred in not correctly evaluating their contentions. The High Court, however, held that ample opportunities had been afforded, non‑compliance persisted, and the order under Section 12(3) was legal. It distinguished a prior ruling (Ramkumar v. Ashok Kumar Jacob) rather than following it, and dismissed the revisions, upholding the eviction orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioners argued that the Rent Control Court erred in issuing the 12(3) order without affording any opportunity to explain the admitted default. They asserted that the rent due as per the 02.04.2022 order was in fact paid, albeit belatedly, and that a Section 12(3) order should not have been passed under these circumstances. They contended that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the contentions in the light of the belated payment and the absence of any deliberate default. They relied on the need for procedural fairness and argued that the chronology of events did not justify eviction.

Contentions of Respondents

The landlord contended that non‑compliance with the 02.04.2022 directions justified invoking Section 12(3), especially since the tenant did not pay within the prescribed time despite repeated opportunities. They argued that the tenant’s belated payment did not negate the default or the court’s power to halt proceedings under 12(3). They emphasized that the tenant had opportunities to explain the default, which were not utilized, and that the Appellate Authority correctly dismissed the appeals. The landlord also highlighted that the tenant sought to file misleading documents and attempted to delay the process, which justified the protective measures to restore possession."},

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Ramkumar v. Ashok Kumar Jacob2022 (1) KHC 495DistinguishedThe High Court rejected the proposition that an opportunity to show cause must be afforded even where there is non‑compliance with Section 12(1); it stated that the Ramkumar case did not lay down such a proposition applicable to these facts.

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 RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 (Rajeshwary and others v. V. Ramanandaprabhu) 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945** **RCREV. NO. 105 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTRCP 182/2020 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, EKM (RENT CONTROL) RCA 49/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** RAJESWARY AGED 53 YEARS 1 W/O. LATE P.G BABU, PUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, PULIKKAPARAMBIL, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682026 BABITHA P.B AGED 31 YEARS 2 W/O. DIPULAL P.D AND D/O. LATE P.G BABU, NOW RESIDING AT PLASSERY HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682026 PREETHI AGED 27 YEARS W/O. KANNANRAMAKRISHNAN& D/O. LATE P.G BABU, NOW 3 RESIDING AT SUDHALAYAM, PERANDOOR ROAD, VARAMMEL LANE, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI,, PIN - 682026 BY ADVS. A.T.ANILKUMAR V.SHYLAJA ## **RESPONDENT/S:** V. RAMANANDAPRABHU S/O. VENKITESWARAPRABHU, KRISHNA PRABHU BUILDING, BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN - 682031 RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 2 BY ADV RAMANATH M.P (CAVEATOR) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2023, ALONG WITH RCREV.106/2023,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **& THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945** **RCREV. NO. 106 OF 2023** **RCP 183/2020 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM RCA 50/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:** RAJESWARY AGED 53 YEARS 1 W/O. LATE P.G BABU, PUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, PULIKKAPARAMBIL, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI,, PIN - 682026 BABITHA P.B AGED 31 YEARS 2 W/O. DIPULAL P.D AND D/O. LATE P.G BABU, NOW RESIDING AT PLASSERY HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682026 PREETHI AGED 27 YEARS W/O. KANNANRAMAKRISHNAN& D/O. LATE P.G BABU, NOW 3 RESIDING AT SUDHALAYAM, PERANDOOR ROAD, VARAMMEL LANE, ELAMAKKARA, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI, PIN - 682026 BY ADVS. A.T.ANILKUMAR V.SHYLAJA ## **RESPONDENT/S:** V. RAMANANDAPRABHU S/O. VENKITESWARAPRABHU, KRISHNA PRABHU BUILDING, BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PIN - 682031 RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 4 BY ADV M.P.RAMNATH(K/935/1998)CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2023, ALONG WITH RCREV.105/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 5 ## A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ ............................................................ RCRev. Nos.105 and 106 of 2023 .................................................................. Dated this the 5th day of June, 2023 ## O R D E R ## Mohammed Nias.C.P. J. RCR No.105/2023 is filed by the tenant in RCP No.182/2020 challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 31.03.2023 dismissing the appeals filed against the order in I.A.No.5/2022 in RCP No.182/2020 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, dated 27.9.2022. RCR No.106/2023 is filed by the same tenant challenging the order in RCA No.50/2022 dated 31.3.2023 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, and dismissed the challenge against the order in I.A.No.8/2022 in RCP No.183/2020 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, dated 27.9.2022. 2. The revision petitioner/tenant occupies two rooms belonging to the respondent landlord. RCP No.183/2020 is filed seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the said application, the landlord filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, and by order dated 02.4.2022, the Rent Control Court allowed the application directing the tenant to remit the rent in arrears from November 2020 at Rs.10,450/- per month, within 30 days of the RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 6 receipt of the order. There was a further direction to pay the balance arrears for the period from May 2020 to October 2020. The third direction was to continue to remit the rent, which may subsequently fall due within 15 days from the due date till the culmination of the rent control proceedings. Alleging that the tenant did not comply with the orders passed under Section 12(1) of the Act, the landlord preferred an application under Section 12(3) of the Act, praying for a direction to stop the proceedings in the RCP and to put the landlord in the vacant possession of the building. By order dated 27.9.2022, the Rent Control Court found that the second condition in the order dated 02.4.2022 was not complied with even after sufficient opportunities were granted to the tenant. Under such circumstances, the court below passed the order on 12.3.2023, stopping all the proceedings and with a direction to the tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the plaint schedule building to the landlord within 30 days from the date of the order. Identical orders were passed in both cases. 3. The above orders of the Rent Control Court were challenged in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, and, by orders impugned herein, the appeals preferred by the tenant were dismissed. 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the Rent Control Court erred in passing the second order under Section 12(3) of the Act without giving any opportunity to the tenant to explain the reason for the default. It is also his argument that the rent, as directed in the earlier order dated 02.4.2022, was, in fact, paid, although belatedly. It is his argument that in such circumstances, an order under Section 12(3) could not have been passed. The Appellate Authority did not consider the contentions of the tenant in the correct perspective while dismissing the appeals preferred against the order under Section 12(3) of the Act. RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 7 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the caveator landlord, we are not in a position to accept the contentions on behalf of the revision petitioners. The fact that the order dated 02.4.2022 was not challenged by the tenant shows that he had accepted the directions in the said order and, therefore, he ought to have complied with the same. The fact that the tenant did not pay the rent within the time as directed in the order is also not in dispute. Impugned order shows that several opportunities were given before passing the order under Section 12(3) of the Act. 6. The learned counsel for the tenant, however, argued that he had filed an application on 29.9.2022 stating that the landlord was refusing to accept the rent and, therefore, he may be directed to furnish the account details. This submission is resisted by the learned counsel for the landlord, stating that an application was filed after the Rent Control Court passed orders under Section 12(3) of the Act on 29.7.2022. It is also pointed out that no objections were filed when the landlord preferred I.A.No.8/2022, the application under Section 12(3) of the Act, despite two chances being given In such circumstances, the tenant cannot be heard to say that he was deprived of any opportunity to file objections or to show cause. 7. On going through the chronology of events leading to the impugned orders, which we gather from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the landlord, it is clear that there has been non-compliance of the directions of the Rent Control Court dated 02.4.2022. The non-compliance of the order dated 02.4.2022 under S.12(1) of the Act resulted in the order under Section 12(3) of the Act being passed as the tenant showed no cause for the admitted default. There is nothing illegal or irregular in the exercise of power by the Rent Controller under Section 12(3) of the Act. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argues on the basis of the RCR Nos.105 & 106 of 2023 8 judgment of this Court in Ramkumar v. Ashok Kumar Jacob [2022 (1) KHC 495] that an opportunity to show cause must be afforded to the tenant, even if the order in S.12(1) is not complied with. We do not find any such proposition laid in the above judgment. On facts, we have already held that the tenant was given sufficient opportunities, as rightly noticed in the impugned orders, and no further opportunity was liable to be granted to the tenant in the instant case. We find no merit in these revisions, and the same will stand dismissed. SD/- ## A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SD/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE ``` okb/6.6.23 ```