K.P.M. Shaji vs Biju Immanuel

“11.

In view of the principle evolved in Narayanan V. Vinod (supra), from the language of Sec-tion 12 (3) of the Act and from the legislative intent, it is not for the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority to issue any separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent. Instead, when the time fixed by the court for deposit of the arrears of rent runs out and the tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not expected to pass an order ordering ejectment of the tenant forthwith. The Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should normally ad-journ the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date fixed for deposit, thereby allowing reasonable time to the tenant to show sufficient cause for not depositing the rent if he has committed default in payment of the arrears of rent. We are of the considered opinion that the interpretation made and the directions issued in Narayanan V. Vinod (supra) is more apt and appropri-ate to be held as a view which can be legally sustained. It cannot be disputed that the opportunity to be af-forded to the tenant to show 'sufficient cause' with re-spect to the failure to pay or to deposit the rent as di-rected in subsections (1) & (2), within the date stipu-lated, is not an empty formality. The principle of natu-ral justice would mandate that the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should af-ford the tenant with such an opportunity. But the question is whether the Rent Controller or the Appel-late Authority need to issue any specific notice in this regard to the tenant to show cause. It is to be noticed that, the consequences provided under sub-section (3) follows when there occurres a default in complying with the direction for deposit or payment of the admitted ar-rears. Therefore, on the date stipulated for effecting such payment, by virtue of the order passed under subsections (1) & (2), the tenant becomes fully aware that unless sufficient cause has not been shown for the default committed, the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and direction to put the landlord in pos-session of the building, would follow automatically. Therefore there is no necessity to alert the tenant by is-suing any specific notice in this regard, calling upon him to show 'sufficient cause'. On the other hand, pro-viding of a further opportunity after the last date stipu-lated for effecting the payment or the deposit, is not mandatory. If no sufficient cause is shown within such extended date to which the rent control petition is posted, it is absolutely within the authority and compe-tence; and is the natural consequence that the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should stop the proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Such a procedure, if followed, would be sufficient compliance for providing reasonable opportunity satisfying the statutory requirement contained in Section 12 (3). Hence we are of the considered opinion that the deci-sion in Narayanan V. Vinod (supra), eventhough passed without noticing the decision in Pochappan Narayanan V. Gopalan (supra) had laid the correct law. The view in this regard has got support from the deci-sion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sankaran Pillai V. V.P. Venuguduswami (supra) and also from the deci-sion of this court in C.V. Xavier V. Francis Leonard Pappali (supra) and Narayanan V. Muraleedhara Maran (supra). Hence the reference is answered accordingly.”