AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Krishna Kumar, J.
On 12/10/2022, the Rent Control Court passed an order under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’, for short) directing the petitioners herein to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule property for the reason that the petitioner did not pay the arrears of rent despite the specific order passed by the court on 19/01/2022. The tenants challenged this order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority by preferring an appeal, but the Appellate Authority confirmed the said order, and thus, the tenants preferred this revision petition.
On 19/01/2022, the Rent Control Court passed an order in I.A.No.1/2021 directing the petitioners to pay the entire admitted arrears of rent @ Rs.2,500/- per month from 01/04/2018 till date and continue to pay the admitted arrears subsequently becomes due within two weeks from the date when it falls due. Thereafter, the case was posted on 24/01/2022, 24/02/2022 and 13/03/2022. After that, on 30/08/2022, the court passed the following order:
“Suo motu advanced. Listed to holiday mistakenly. Relisted. Issue notice to both counsel regarding relisting”
We have perused the records to verify whether notice as ordered was served on the counsel for the petitioners herein, as it was stoutly contended that on 12.10.2022 when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner herein was not heard. We found a notice dated 30/08/2022 in the trial court records. It appears from the said notice that it was served upon Adv.Sri. K. Ummer (counsel for the landlord) and Adv.Sri.P.V.Aseen (counsel for the tenants). In the above circumstance, we find no reason to uphold the contention raised by the petitioners that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioners. Further, the impugned order dated 12/10/2022 itself mentions that on that day, the counsel for the tenants reported “no instruction”.
The impugned order is assailed on yet another ground that the court ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the tenants to show cause why an order of eviction should not be passed, particularly when the court had recorded on a previous posting that the tenants paid the entire arrears as per the order in the I.A.
A Full Bench of this court in Shaji M. v. SNDP Sakhayogam No.610, Alappuzha and Another (2020 (2) KHC 574) held that it is not at all necessary for the Rent Control Court to issue a separate notice to show sufficient cause by the tenants for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent and what is imperative is only to give him an opportunity, adjourning the case after passing the initial order under Section 12. Then, on the next hearing date, if the tenants fail to show sufficient cause, the order for stoppage of proceedings and a direction to put the landlord in possession would follow automatically, it is held. Here, the proceedings before the Rent Control Court were perfectly consistent with the above observations. The Court adjourned the matter after passing the initial order for four times, yet the tenants did not show any cause.
In the said circumstances, the only question is whether the order passed by the Rent Control Court on 24.02.2022 that “the amount as per the order in I.A. paid” caused any prejudice to the tenants in making further deposits or payments before the subsequent postings. As noted above, in the order dated 19.01.2022, the Rent Control Court not only ordered that the entire admitted arrears of rent @ Rs.2,500/- per month from 01.04.2018 till date has to be paid within four weeks but also directed the tenants to continue to pay the admitted arrears subsequently becomes due, within two weeks. On 06.10.2022, the landlord filed another interlocutory application as I.A.No.1/2022 (Annexure A5) stating that after the above order, the tenants paid only Rs.64,000/- towards arrears besides Rs.25,000/- which was deposited in the court towards the arrears of rent and thus there is a considerable amount as rent arrears since the total amount fell in due as on 31/01/2022 would be Rs.1,15,000/-. After noting all these facts, the Rent Control Court passed the impugned order recording that the entire admitted arrears would come to Rs.1,35,000/- till that date (12/10/2022), but the tenants did not pay the full amount, and thereby directed the tenants to put the landlord in possession.
It appears that after passing the said order, the landlord on the same day ‘not pressed’ the said interlocutory application, presumably for the reason that the court has already passed the impugned order on the original petition itself, following its order in I.A.No.1/2021. According to the landlord, the payment effected by the tenants was only Rs.89,000/-(Rs.64,000/- + Rs.25,000/-, the amount deposited in the court, which was permitted to be adjusted against the arrears of rent), but the court recorded that the respondent had paid an amount of Rs.1,15,000/-. This aspect is also raised as a ground to challenge the impugned order by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein, together with a contention that when I.A.No.1/2022 was dismissed as ‘not pressed’, there was no occasion to pass the impugned order.
However, the facts narrated above clearly reveal that the tenants have no justification for contesting the matter. They received ample opportunity to pay the arrears of rent as well as to show cause before passing the impugned order. Instead, they allowed the Rent Control Court to pass the said order and then took up the matter with the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rightly rejected the contentions advanced by the tenants after noting the above aspects. In the memorandum of appeal, the tenants stated that they have paid Rs.1,15,000/- through the court and the said amount will cover the entire rent arrears till the month of January 2022. Even if this contention is accepted as genuine, the petitioners have no justification for not paying the rent subsequently became due up to 12/10/2022 and they did not show cause why an order of stoppage of proceedings and eviction ought not to have been passed on 24.02.2022, 13.03.2022 or 12/10/2022.
In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts entered into by the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. However, considering the fervent plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners, two months time is given to the petitioners to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building, on condition that they shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order, to the effect that they would put the landlord in possession within the time limit mentioned above.
The Rent Control Revision is dismissed.