Midhun vs Aliamma Joy
2021 Latest Caselaw 15471 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                                 &
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

       FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943

                       O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 27.02.2021 AND 08.04.2021 IN R.C.P.No.3
  of 2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF COURT), CHALAKUDY.

PETITIONER/S:

           MIDHUN,
           AGED 27 YEARS,
           S/O. MARTIN, NETTIKADAN HOUSE, KARAYAMPARAMABU KARA,
           KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK.

           BY ADVS.
           LINDONS C.DAVIS
           SMT.E.U.DHANYA

RESPONDENT/S:

           ALIAMMA JOY,
           AGED 78 YEARS,
           W/O. LATE JOY, PYNADATH HOUSE, ANGAMALY KARA, ANGAMALY
           VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK 683572
     THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION          ON
23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

                                    ::2::


                             JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.3 of

2020 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Chalakudy, a petition

dated 10.03.2020 (Ext.P1) filed by the respondent herein-landlady

under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease

and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking an order of eviction of the

tenant from the petition schedule building. The landlady filed

I.A.No.1 of 2020, a petition dated 06.07.2020 (Ext.P2), under

Section 12(1) and (3) of the Act, seeking an order directing the

tenant to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, in

respect of the petition schedule building, and in case of failure on

the part of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent, an order

directing him to give vacant possession of the petition schedule

building to the landlady. The tenant filed an objection dated

06.01.2021 (Ext.P3) in I.A. No.1 of 2020. The landlady filed a

statement dated 10.02.2021 (Ext.P4), showing the arrears of rent

payable. The Rent Control Court, by proceedings dated

27.02.2021 (Ext.P5), directed the tenant to pay the admitted

arrears of rent, failing which his defence will be struck off. The

proceedings dated 27.02.2021 reads thus;

O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::3::

"Rs.10,000/- being paid today. The respondent is directed to clear off all admitted arrears of rent, failing which his defence will be struck off. Referred to mediation. If not settled, call on 08.04.2021."

2. On 15.03.2021, the tenant filed a statement

dated 15.03.2021 (Ext.P6), wherein it is admitted that an amount

of Rs.1,40,000/- is due towards arrears of rent, as on 01.03.2021.

On 08.04.2021, the Rent Control Court issued another proceedings

(Ext.P7), which reads thus;

"Admitted amount of rent of Rs.1,40,000/- not deposited as ordered on 27.02.2021. For hearing 07.05.2021."

3. Feeling aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P7 proceedings

of the Rent Control Court, the petitioner-tenant is before this

Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction

of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. On 04.05.2021, when this original petition came

up for admission, this court admitted the matter on file and issued

notice to the respondent. This Court granted an interim stay of

further proceedings in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020, on condition that the

petitioner-tenant deposits Rs.1,40,000/- before the Rent Control

Court towards arrears of rent, within a period of three weeks.

5. On 30.06.2021, when this original petition came O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::4::

up for consideration, despite service of notice, none appeared for

the respondent. The petitioner-tenant filed I.A.No.1 of 2021

seeking extension of time for payment of Rs.1,40,000/-, in terms

of the order of this Court dated 04.05.2021. The said application

was accompanied by C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2021 to condone the delay

of three days. Those applications were allowed by the order dated

30.06.2021 and the tenant was granted extension of time up to

02.07.2021 for payment of Rs.1,40,000/-.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-

tenant. Despite service of notice, none appears for the

respondent-landlady.

7. The issue that arises for consideration in this

original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on

Exts.P5 and P7 proceedings of the Rent Control Court in

R.C.P.No.3 of 2020, issued in the purported exercise of jurisdiction

under Section 12 of the Act.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant

would contend that, since the tenant did not admit arrears of rent

in Ext.P3 objection filed in I.A. No.1 of 2020, the Rent Control

Court went wrong in directing the tenant, vide Ext.P5 proceedings,

to clear off the 'admitted' arrears of rent, failing which his defence O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::5::

will be struck off. There is no order of the Rent Control Court

under Section 12(1) of the Act, specifying the admitted arrears of

rent. No time limit, as prescribed in the proviso to Section 12(2),

is specified in Ext.P5 proceedings. After Ext.P5, the tenant filed

Ext.P6 statement, wherein it is admitted that an amount of

Rs.1,40,000/- is due towards arrears of rent, as on 01.03.2021.

On 08.04.2021, since there was no settlement in mediation, the

tenant requested permission of the Rent Control Court to pay off

the admitted arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,40,000/-.

However, the Rent Control Court declined the said request, and

recorded in Ext.P7 proceedings that the admitted rent amounting

to Rs.1,40,000/- is not deposited, as ordered on 27.02.2021.

9. Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and

Rent Control) Act deals with payment or deposit of rent during the

pendency of proceedings for eviction. As per Section 12(1), no

tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by

a landlord under Section 11, shall be entitled to contest the

application before the Rent Control Court under that Section, or to

prefer an appeal under Section 18 against any order made by the

Rent Control Court on the application, unless he has paid or pays

to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::6::

Appellate Authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent

admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to

the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit

any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the

building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent

Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. As

per Section 12(2), the deposit under sub-section (1) shall be made

within such time as the court may fix and in such manner as may

be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed for

the service of notice referred to in sub-section (4). As per the

proviso to sub-section (2), the time fixed by the court for the

deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks

from the date of the order and the time fixed for the deposit of

rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than two

weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due.

10. As per Section 12(3) of the Act, if any tenant

fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control

Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless

the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further

proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the

landlord in possession of the building. As per Section 12(4), when O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::7::

any deposit is made under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court

or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall cause notice

of the deposit to be served on the landlord in the prescribed

manner, and the amount deposited may, subject to such

conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on

application made by him to the Rent Control Court or the Appellate

Authority in that behalf.

11. Therefore, Section 12(1) of the Act enjoins a

tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by

a landlord under Section 11, to pay to the landlord or deposit with

the Rent Control Court, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant

to be due in respect of the building, up to the date of payment or

deposit, and continue to pay or deposit any rent which may

subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the

termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, in

order to contest that application for eviction before the Rent

Control Court. Section 12(2) enjoins a tenant to pay or deposit the

admitted rent under sub-section (1), within such time as the court

may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed. The time fixed

by the court for the deposit of the arrears of rent and the time

fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall

not be less than that specified in the proviso to Section 12(2). If O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::8::

any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent

Control Court shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the

contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing

the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, as

provided under Section 12(3) of the Act.

12. In view of the statutory mandate of Section

12(1) of the Act, in an application filed by the landlord under

Section 12 of the Act, the Rent Control Court has to order

payment of arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in

respect of the petition schedule building, up to the date of

payment or deposit, and the tenant shall also be ordered to

continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently

become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the

proceedings before the Rent Control Court for eviction under

Section 11 of the Act. In case, after an order under Section 12(1)

of the Act, the tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid,

the Rent Control Court shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient

cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an

order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the

building, under Section 12(3) of the Act.

13. In the instant case, Ext.P5 proceedings of the

Rent Control Court is cryptic in nature inasmuch as no reason has O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::9::

been stated therein for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section

12 of the Act. A reading of the provisions under Section 12(1) of

the Act makes it explicitly clear that, before issuing direction under

the said sub-section, the Rent Control Court has to arrive at a

finding that the tenant has admitted the arrears of rent due in

respect of the building in question. A cryptic order passed by the

Rent Control Court, like the one, which is impugned in this revision

petition, virtually makes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court

nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as, such an order which does

not disclose any reasons will be of little assistance to this Court,

while analysing the reasoning essential to such a decision.

14. In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v.

Woolcombers Workers Union [(1974) 3 SCC 318] the Apex

Court, while considering the challenge made against an award

under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, held that

the giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and

quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is

essential for various reasons. Firstly, it is calculated to prevent

unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the

conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on

the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of

personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::10::

adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a

reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous

considerations. Secondly, it is a well known principle that justice

should not only be done but should also appear to be

done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not

appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions,

on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice.

Thirdly, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies

from the decisions of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to the

Apex Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment

which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to

the court. The court will have to wade through the entire record

and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong.

Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi

judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of

their conclusions.

15. In English v. Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd.

[(2002) 1 WLR 2409] the Court of Appeal held that, a judicial

decision which affected the substantive rights of the parties should

be reasoned, although some judicial decisions, e.g. interlocutory

case management decisions, did not require reasons; that, while a

judge was not obliged to deal with every argument or identify or O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::11::

explain every factor which weighed with him, the issues the

resolution of which were vital to his conclusion should be

identified and the manner in which he resolved them briefly but

clearly explained, so that the judgment enabled the parties and

any appellate tribunal readily to analyse the reasoning essential to

his decision.

16. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax

Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785] the

Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin

ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely

affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to

show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and

secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give

reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of

mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and

circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being

applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires

that the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement

with higher degree of satisfaction.

17. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax

Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) 4 SCC 785] the

Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::12::

ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely

affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to

show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and

secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give

reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of

mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and

circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being

applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that

the judgment of the court should meet with this requirement with

higher degree of satisfaction.

18. In Shukla and Brothers the Apex Court held

further that, a litigant who approaches the court with any

grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons

for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders.

Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it

may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more

particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These

principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive

actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater

degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment

without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is

pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::13::

weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes

impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds

before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment.

19. In the above view of the matter we find no

reasons to sustain Ext.P5 proceedings dated 27.02.2021 of the

Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020 and also Ext.P7

proceedings dated 08.04.2021. The Rent Control Court has to

consider I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020 filed by the

respondent-landlady afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon,

without any delay.

20. In the result, this original petition is allowed by

setting aside Exts.P5 and P7 proceedings of the Rent Control

Court, Chalakudy, in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020, and directing the said

court to consider I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.3 of 2020 filed by

the respondent-landlady afresh and pass appropriate orders

thereon, taking note of the statutory provisions referred to

hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decisions referred

to supra, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period

of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of

this judgment.

21. In terms of the order of this Court dated

04.05.2021, as modified by the order dated 30.06.2021 in O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::14::

I.A.No.1 of 2021, the petitioner-tenant had deposited

Rs.1,40,000/- before the Rent Control Court, on 01.07.2021. The

Rent Control Court shall permit the landlady to withdraw the said

amount, which is lying in court deposit, as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date

of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

M.R. ANITHA JUDGE

MIN O.P.(RC)NO.59 OF 2021

::15::

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF RCP NO.3/2020 FILED BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHALAKUDY EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE IA NO. 1/2020 IN RCP NO. 3/2020 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHALAKUDY EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN IA NO. 1/2020 IN RCP NO. 3/2020 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHALAKUDY EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ARREARS FILED BY THE LANDLADY DATED 10-02-2021 FILED BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHALAKUDY EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27-02-

2021 IN RCP NO. 3/2020 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHALAKUDAY EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ARREARS OF RENT FILED BY THE TENANT (PETITIONER HEREIN) ON 15-03-2021 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHALAKKUDAY.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 08-

04-2021 IN RCP NO. 3/2020 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, CHALAKUDAY.