Sunitha Kumari v. Jayakumar
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anil K. Narendran
- P. G. Ajithkumar
- Judgment Date
- 2021-11-12
- Court Decision / Holding
- O.P.(RC) No.113 of 2021 disposed of; Ext.P1 order not interfered with; however, the petitioner-tenant is permitted to pay the arrears of Rs.5,06,000 in four equal monthly instalments commencing from 20.11.2021, with the subsequent instalments due on or before the 20th day of the following months. If instalments are paid timely and rent is paid for the subsequent period, coercive steps under Section 12 are deferred for four months; default permits the Rent Control Court to take action under law.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of; Ext.P1 not interfered with; four-month breathing time granted for paying Rs.5,06,000 in four instalments, with deferral of coercive steps if instalments and rent payments continue as directed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sunitha Kumari
Respondents
- Jayakumar
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Smt. Priya Shanavas
- • Sri. Bijith S. Khan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri Abhilash
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Kerala High Court case under Article 227 challenging Ext.P1 of the Addl. Rent Control Court, Kollam, in O.P.(BRC) No.29 of 2020, seeking eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petition was filed by the landlord under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) for eviction and by the tenant under Section 12, seeking payment of admitted arrears and a direction to continue paying rent. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant defaulted in payment from September 2019 amounting to Rs.5,06,000, directing payment by 08.11.2021 and to pay future rent at Rs.22,000 monthly. The tenant admitted the rent rate but claimed she had paid rent up to February 2020, while the counter asserted arrears from September 2019. The petition challenged the Ext.P1 order, relying on the Division Bench decision in Jose P. v. Xavier and another, and argued that a mere blank denial could not sustain a default finding where the rate of rent is admitted. The landlord argued that, under Section 9(2) and the rent deed, admitted arrears could be quantified and that a blank denial does not defeat the statutory liability. The High Court disposed of the petition by affirming Ext.P1 but granting four months of breathing time: Rs.5,06,000 to be paid in four equal installments starting 20.11.2021, with further deferral of coercive actions if timely paid. The decision emphasizes quantification of admitted arrears, scope of Section 12, and balancing COVID-19 considerations with statutory rights.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner-tenant argued that though the rent rate is admitted, the counter affidavit claiming payment up to February 2020 undermines Ext.P1's calculation of arrears from September 2019. Citing Jose P. v. Xavier, she contends that a blanket denial under Section 12(1)/(2) cannot trigger the quantified arrears without regard to admitted rent and receipts. She seeks breathing time for payment of admitted arrears (Rs.5,06,000) and argues for instalment-based payment, highlighting COVID-19 considerations and requesting eight months to satisfy arrears while continuing to pay rent. She notes no rent default after August 2021, and seeks relief from coercive steps.
Contentions of Respondents
The landlord argues that a blank denial cannot defeat the statutory liability under Section 12, given the admitted rent and the evidence under Section 9(2). He relies on the Rent Control Court’s quantification of arrears from the rent deed and receipts, as supported by Gopala Panicker Baiju v. Mallika, to argue that Rs.5,06,000 constitutes admitted arrears requiring payment, and that Ext.P1 should not be disregarded nor diluted, except for reasonable time to pay under a structured arrangement. He is prepared to grant four months’ time to the tenant to pay the arrears if the tenant continues to pay rent as directed and adheres to the future payment schedule.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jose P. v. Xavier and another | 2017 (3) KLT 222 | Mentioned Only | Cited by the petitioner’s counsel to support the view that a blank denial cannot override the admitted rent issue in the Section 12 context; the court does not adopt it as a binding rule in the present decision. |
| Gopala Panicker Baiju & another v. Mallika | 2018 (5) KHC 95 | Positive | Cited with approval as supporting the principle that admitted arrears can be quantified from the rent deed and receipts; the decision uses this to justify the Rs.5,06,000 arrears as admitted. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Sunitha Kumari v. Jayakumar and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.