R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 11TH ASWINA, 1945 R.C.REV. NO. 88 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2023 IN R.C.A.NO.60 OF 2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR AND THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.612 OF 2019 IN R.C.P.NO.7 OF 2012 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF),** ## **IRINJALAKUDA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT & RESPONDENT:** ## **CURRENT BOOKS** **CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAVI D. C., S/O.DOMINIC CHACKO, KIZHAKKERMURI HOUSE, DEVALOKAM, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, G. VENUGOPAL, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.K.G. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, GOPI VILASAM, POOTHAKKUZHI POST, PAMBADI, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686001.** **BY ADVS. B.ASHOK SHENOY P.S.GIREESH SALIH P.A. ARJUN R NAIK THEJALAKSHMI R.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & PETITIONERS:** **1 MERY ANTHAPPAN AGED 68 YEARS KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN – 680121.** 2 R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 - **2 PAULSON** **AGED 46 YEARS** **SON OF MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN – 680121.** - **3 BABU** **AGED 43 YEARS,** **SON OF MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN – 680121.** - **4 VINCENT** **AGED 41 YEARS** **SON OF MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN – 680121.** **BY ADVS.** **SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL R.RAJITHA CHITHRA S.BABU** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 03.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 ## P.B. SURESH KUMAR & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------------R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 ----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of October, 2023 ## O R D E R ## P.G.Ajithkumar, J. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondentslandlords filed R.C.P.No.7 of 2012 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Irinjalakuda, seeking eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The respondents filed I.A.No.612 of 2019 in the R.C.P. under Section 12 of the Act. The Rent Control Court as per order dated 08.11.2019 directed the petitioners to pay admitted arrears of rent, which was quantified to be Rs.7,99,851/-. The petitioner did not pay the arrears of rent or show sufficient cause not to pay the rent. Hence, the Rent Control Court stopped the proceedings directing the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises under Section 12(3) of the Act. The petitioner preferred appeal, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Those concurrent decisions are under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of the Act. 4 R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The contentions of the petitioner are two fold; first, the petitioners are not liable to make payment of the fair rent in order to avert an order under Section 12, and secondly, sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the petitioners to show cause before passing the order under Section 12(3) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner incidentally submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire arrears of rent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, would submit that the petitioner having failed to challenge the order under Section 12(1) of the Act and refused to make the amount found to be due as arrears of rent, he is not entitled to challenge the order under Section 12(3) of the Act. It is also contended that enough time was afforded to the petitioners to make payment or to show cause, but they did not. And, their offer now to make payment of entire arrears of rent is only for protracting the proceedings. 5 R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 5. The fair rent for the petition schedule premises was fixed as Rs.18,000/- per month with effect from January 2014. The rent at that rate has not been paid during the period from January, 2014. Those facts are not in dispute. The petitioner contended that I.A.No.4777 of 2017 was earlier filed by the respondents for the same purpose and therefore a second petition is not maintainable. It is true that the respondent earlier filed I.A.No.4777 of 2017 under Section 12 of the Act. The petitioner remained exparte at that time. Therefore the Rent Control Court closed I.A.No.4777 of 2017. The objective of Section 12 of the Act is to disallow a tenant from contesting a petition for eviction filed under Section 11 of the Act, without making payment of the arrears of rent admitted to be due. In a case where the tenant remains exparte, there is no question of admission of rent or contest of the proceedings. In view of that, the order closing I.A.No.4777 of 2017 shall not stand in the way of filing a second petition under Section 12 of the Act at a subsequent stage of the proceedings. 6. The obligation of a tenant under Section 12(1) of the Act for him to avail an opportunity to contest a petition for 6 R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 eviction is to pay rent admitted to be in arrears. Once the period during which the rent is in arrears is admitted, the further question as to what is the rate of rent crops up. The rate of rent can be either the agreed rate or the fair rent fixed by the court. In a case where the fair rent is fixed by the Court under Section 5(1) of the Act and that order has become final, the question of admission or denial of the rate of rent by the tenant does not arise. 7. Where the tenant admits the period during which the rent is in arrears, and the fair rent is finally determined by the court, the liability of the tenant under Section 12(1) of the Act is a fortiori. The petitioner admitted before the Rent Control Court that the rent since January, 2014 has been in arrears. It necessarily follows that the rent admitted to be due is the rent at the rate of Rs. 18,000/ per month from January 2014 onwards. 8. The petitioner contended that non-payment of rent was for the reason that the respondents refused to receive the rent. It is said the respondents did not receive the rent paid by way of demand drafts. Such a contention is not available to a 7 R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 tenant since the procedure for payment of rent in such a situation is contemplated in Section 10 of the Act. He could at any rate deposit the rent in court and avert an action under Section 12 of the Act. He did not do that also. In such circumstances, we find no infirmity to the finding of the Rent Control Court that an amount of Rs.7,99,851/- till January, 2019 was due as admitted arrears of rent. 9. It is further contended by the petitioner that sufficient time to make payment or to show cause was not afforded. The law in this regard is settled. It is not necessary that a show cause notice is issued to the tenant. What is required is only to afford a reasonable opportunity to the tenant by postponing the proceedings. 10 . In Suvarna v. Ibrahimkutty and others [2021 (6) KHC 250] this Court held that it is not necessary to issue any separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent. When the time fixed for the deposit of arrears of rent runs out the tenant becomes fully aware that, unless sufficient cause is shown for the default committed, the consequence is the 8 R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 stoppage of the proceedings So, providing of a further opportunity after the last date stipulated for effecting payment or deposit of admitted rent is enough. If no sufficient cause is shown within such time the natural consequence shall be to stop the proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. 11. As per order dated 03.04.2019 in I.A.No.612 of 2019, the Rent Control Court directed the petitioner under Section 12(1) of the Act to make payment of the arrears of rent admitted to be due. The proceedings was then stayed for some time as per the orders of this Court. It is seen that after reporting on 03.10.2019 that the stay was vacated, the Rent Control Court gave several opportunities to the petitioners to make payment or to show cause. It was thereafter, on 08.11.2019, the order under Section 12(3) of the Act was rendered. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the order under Section 12(3) of the Act was passed without affording sufficient opportunity to show cause. Hence, we find no impropriety or illegality to the impugned order. The Appellate Authority rightly had refused to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Court. 9 R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 In view of what are stated above, this revision petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr 10 R.C.Rev.No.88 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF R.C.REV.NO.88/2023** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DATED 7.4.2021 IN IA NO.1 OF 2021 IN RCP NO.7 OF 2012 FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 22.4.2023 SENT BY REVISION PETITIONER TO 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF RETURNED POSTAL COVER**