High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2020-03-12Revision petition dismissed; eviction order uph...

Shobha Mani v. Philip Thomas and Cherian Philip

Case / Petition Number:RCRev..No.56 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Harilal, J.
C. S. Dias, J.
Judgment Date: 2020-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petition is dismissed. The High Court upheld the Rent Control Court’s order directing eviction under Section 12(3) and confirmed the Appellate Authority’s affirmation of eviction. It also reaffirmed that the tenant was liable to deposit the admitted arrears, and the lack of documentary proof for rent reduction did not absolve that liability.
Final Disposition: Revision petition dismissed; eviction order upheld despite tenant’s contentions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shobha Mani

Respondents

Philip Thomas
Cherian Philip

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Abraham John

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri MR Hariraj
• Sri K. Rajagopal
• Sri Viswajith C.K
• Sri Jayraj M.B.
• Smt. Ganga A. Sankar

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala revision petition under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 challenges a summary eviction order under Section 12(3) of the Act. The revision petitioner, Shobha Mani, was the tenant and the respondents are her landlords, Philip Thomas and Cherian Philip. The Rent Control Court had directed the tenant to deposit admitted arrears of rent (alleged to be Rs. 5,95,000) from October 2017 onward, claiming the rent at Rs. 40,000 per month. The tenant resisted maintaining that rent had been reduced to Rs. 25,000 per month from October 2017 due to the Metro rail work and its adverse impact on business, and thus she should not be liable to deposit Rs. 40,000 as monthly rent. The Rent Control Court found the tenant liable to deposit the admitted arrears (deemed admitted in the absence of contrary evidence) and, due to non-deposit and lack of response to time extensions, ordered eviction under Section 12(3). The Appellate Authority affirmed this eviction. The High Court, after hearing both sides, relied on the principle that bare denial does not absolve a tenant from depositing admitted arrears and held that the reduction in rent was not proven with cogent documentary evidence. It dismissed the revision petition and upheld the eviction. The decision thus sustains the landlords’ summary eviction and the tenant’s liability to deposit arrears.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bare denial in a counter statement to an application under Section 12 of the Act does not absolve the tenant from liability to deposit admitted arrears of rent. (Gopala Panicker Baiju v. Mallika, 2018 (5) KHC 95)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner argued that the rent amount was not Rs.40,000 per month from October 2017 onward due to Metro rail work and a downturn in business, hence should not be liable to deposit Rs.40,000 as monthly rent. It was contended that the rent reduction had to be supported by documentary evidence, which was not produced. The petitioner asserted that the absence of receipts post-October 2017 and the claimed reduction should have prevented the eviction order. The petitioner relied on the reply notice indicating the rent at Rs.40,000, arguing inconsistency in the landlord’s claim.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the rent was fixed at Rs.40,000 per month and that arrears from October 2017 were admitted; no reliable documentary proof of any reduction to Rs.25,000 from Oct 2017 was produced. They argued that the tenant failed to deposit admitted arrears after the court’s order and did not show cause for default, justifying eviction under Section 12(3).

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Gopala Panicker Baiju v. Mallika	2018 (5) KHC 95	Positive	The court relied on this authority to support the principle that bare denial cannot absolve a tenant from the liability to deposit admitted arrears of rent under Section 12 of the Act.

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 Shobha Mani v. Philip Thomas and Cherian Philip 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 K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1941** **RCRev..No.56 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.12.2019 IN RCA 45/2019 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 103/2018 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, EKM (RENT CONTROL)** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **SHOBHA MANI, AGED 60 YEARS W/O. LATE WALTER JOSEPH, THONDAYIL HOUSE, 55/4064, MILLS LANE ROAD, S. A. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 016.** **BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOHN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 PHILIP THOMAS, AGED 75 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, RESIDING AT K/12 BCG, GOLDEN ORCHID, 2ND PHASE ROOBY LANE, THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 032. 2 CHERIAN PHILIP, AGED 43 YEARS S/O. PHILIP, RESIDING AT K/12 BCG, GOLDEN ORCHID, 2ND PHASE ROOBY LANE, THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 032.** **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.VISWAJITH C.K R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI. JAYRAJ M.B. R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RCRev..No.56 OF 2020** ..2.. ## **ORDER** ## **K. Harilal, J.** The revision petitioner is the tenant, who is confronting with a summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') in R.C.P.No.103/2018 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.45/2019. (Parties are referred to as in the rent control petition). 2. According to the petitioner/landlord, the tenanted premises was taken on rent by the respondent/tenant @ Rs.40,000/- per month. But, she has defaulted the rent due to him from October 2017 and an amount of **RCRev..No.56 OF 2020** ..3.. Rs.5,95,000/- is due from him. Therefore, he has preferred I.A.No.7017/2018 under Section 12(1) of the Act, seeking a direction to the respondent/tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent @ Rs.40,000/- per month. 3. The respondent/tenant resisted the claim for admitted arrears of rent as prayed for by the petitioner/landlord, contending that the rate of rent was subsequently reduced to Rs.25,000/- per month from October 2017 onwards due to the commencement of metro rail work and the consequential effect in her business. Therefore, she is not liable to deposit rent @ Rs.40,000/- per month. 4. On the rival pleas, both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the respondent/tenant is liable to deposit the admitted arrears of rent as **RCRev..No.56 OF 2020** ..4.. claimed by the petitioner/tenant, on the absence of any contra evidence to prove that rent was subsequently reduced to Rs.25,000/per month. So also, it was found that no receipt or any other material was produced to prove that she has paid rent after October 2017. On the aforesaid findings, the Rent Control Court directed the respondent/tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent, within a period of 30 days from the date of order. On that date, the respondent/tenant did not file any application for extension of time nor did she show any cause, for the nondeposit. The order was passed on 22.04.2019, and the case was adjourned to 22.05.2019. As there was no deposit or show cause, for default the case was adjourned to 24.05.2019. On that date also, there was no application for extension of time and no cause was shown **RCRev..No.56 OF 2020** ..5.. for non-compliance of the order. In the above context, the Rent Control Court passed an order under Section 12(3) of the Act, directing the respondent/ tenant to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises forthwith. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner preferred R.C.A No.45/2019 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority after reappreciating the findings of the Rent Control Court confirmed the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of the Act. The legality and propriety of the findings, whereby the courts below concurrently passed a summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) of the Act are challenged in this revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the **RCRev..No.56 OF 2020** ..6.. respondent. 6. The landlord-tenant relationship stands admitted. As regards the rate of rent, it is the specific case of the petitioner/landlord that the rent was fixed @ Rs.40,000/- per month and the rent was due from October-2017. The respondent/tenant contended that due to the metro work, there was a down fall in his volume of business and in that context, the petitioner/landlord agreed to reduce the rent from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month from October 2017 and the rent was being paid @ Rs.25,000/- per month. No document has been produced to substantiate the contention that, subsequently, the rate of rent was reduced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. On the other hand, the petitioner/landlord produced a reply notice sent by the respondent/tenant to **RCRev..No.56 OF 2020** ..7.. show that the respondent/tenant himself admitted that the current rate of rent is Rs.40,000/-. As regards the default period, it is a case of the petitioner/landlord that rent was due from October 2017 onwards. No rent receipt was produced to prove the payment of rent after October 2017. So also, the respondent/tenant has no case that the petitioner/landlord has refused to receive rent or to issue receipt, after receiving the rent. Though the Rent Control Court passed order under Section 12(2) directing the revision petitioner to deposit admitted arrears of rent only, she did not deposit the same. 7. As rightly observed by the Appellate Authority, in _**Gopala Panicker Baiju**_ v. _**Mallika [2018 (5) KHC 95]**_ , this Court held that a bare denial would not absolve the **RCRev..No.56 OF 2020** ..8.. tenant from liability to deposit the admitted arrears of rent and that the tenant cannot be allowed to wriggle out from his statutory liability under Section 12 of the Act by a blanket denial in his counter statement to the application filed under Section 12 of the Act. 8. To sum up; no document has been produced to prove either the reduction in the rate of rent or payment of rent, after October 2017. So also, no application was filed to extent the period granted for depositing the admitted arrears of rent. No amount was deposited as admitted arrears of rent. In the said circumstance, the Rent Control Court is justified in passing a summary order or eviction under Section 12(3) of the Act. Absolutely, there is no illegality or impropriety in any of the **RCRev..No.56 OF 2020** ..9.. findings, whereby the Appellate Authority confirmed the summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) of the Act, passed by the Rent Control Court. Hence, this revision petition would stand dismissed. **Sd/K.HARILAL JUDGE** **Sd/C.S.DIAS JUDGE** **SB/13/03/2020** ## **// true copy //** **P.A to Judge**