Kerala High Court
Jaimson Daniel vs C.A. Francis on 23 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945
RCREV. NO. 71 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2023 IN RCA NO.48 OF 2022 OF
THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT-V), ERNAKULAM AND ORDER DATED 26.09.2022 IN RCP NO.156
OF 2021 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF
COURT), ERNAKULAM.
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
JAIMSON DANIEL,AGED 46 YEARS,
APARTMENT NO. P083, DLF NEW TOWN HEIGHTS, SEAPORT AIRPORT
ROAD, CSEZ, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682037.
BY ADV.SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ
ADV.SRI.AMARNATH R LAL
ADV.SRI.P.M.MATHEW
ADV.SRI.SANALDEV E.P.
ADV.VISHNUMAYA ANANDAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 C.A. FRANCIS, E.T AUGUSTINE, HOUSE NO. 64, VIDHYA
NAGAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022.
2 MOLLY FRANCIS, HOUSE NO. 64, VIDHYA NAGAR, SOUTH
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022.
3 JEWEL FRANCIS, HOUSE NO. 64, VIDHYA NAGAR, SOUTH
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
BY ADV.C R SYAM KUMAR(CAVEATOR)
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCRev No.71 of 2023 2
P.B SURESHKUMAR &
SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
Rent Control Revision No.71 of 2023
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2023
ORDER
Sophy Thomas, J.
The tenant in RCP No.156 of 2021 on the file of Rent Control
Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner herein, challenging the
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.48 of
2022, by which the order passed by the Rent Control Court under
Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1965 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') was upheld. The landlords
are the respondents.
2. The landlords filed RCP No.156 of 2021 for evicting the
tenant under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Pending
RCP, the landlords filed I.A No.1 of 2021 seeking payment of
admitted arrears of rent. Though the tenant opposed that petition
contending that the landlords were keeping security amount of
Rs.1,45,000/- received from the tenant, the Rent Control Court
allowed I.A No.1 of 2021 and directed the revision petitioner to
remit the arrears of rent. Though the revision petitioner paid
major portion of the arrears, in various instalments, the landlords
filed I.A No.4 of 2022 under Section 12(3) of the Act, for directing
the tenant to handover vacant possession of the tenanted
premises. The Rent Control Court allowed that petition, directing
the tenant to vacate the premises within 30 days of the order
dated 26.09.2022. The revision petitioner challenged that order
by filing RCA No.48 of 2022 before the Rent Control Appellate
Authority. Though the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted an
interim order of stay, later it was not extended due to non
appearance of the revision petitioner. Subsequently, though he
filed a petition to revive and extend the interim stay, that was not
allowed and the appellate authority disposed RCA No.48 of 2022,
confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. The revision
petitioner is challenging that order, on the ground that he was not
given an opportunity to show cause for not depositing the arrears
while considering IA No.4 of 2022. According to the revision
petitioner, the Rent Control Court failed to comply with the
mandatory requirements under Section 12(3) of the Act, and so,
that order was vitiated and the appellate court ought not have
upheld the same. He has come up with this revision, challenging
the concurrent orders of the Rent Control Court as well as the
appellate authority, under Section 12(3) of the Act.
3. We are called upon to find out whether there is any
illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment.
4. Heard learned counsel Sri.K. Mohammed Rafeeq,
appearing for the revision petitioner and learned counsel Sri.C.R
Shyamkumar, appearing for the respondents.
5. The revision petitioner/tenant is admitting the fact that
the rent was in arrears. The rate of rent also is not in dispute.
But, his main contention is that, while passing an order under
Section 12(3) of the Act, he was not given an opportunity to show
cause. The Rent Control Court on 26.09.2022 allowed the RCP,
and the tenant was directed to vacate the petition schedule
premises within 30 days from the date of the order. The revision
petitioner did not produce copy of the order in I.A No.1 of 2021 or
I.A No.4 of 2022 to show that the Rent Control Court failed to
comply with the procedure envisaged under Section 12 of the Act.
The impugned judgment by the Rent Control Appellate Authority
clearly shows that, both sides were heard before the Rent Control
Court directed the revision petitioner to pay the arrears of rent
from November 2021 @ Rs.19,000/- per month. In fact, there
was no need for the landlords to file a separate I.A thereafter, for
passing an order under Section 12(3) of the Act. Even then, the
landlords filed I.A No.4 of 2022 for passing an order under
Section 12(3) of the Act. Section 12(3) of the Act does not
mandate that the Rent Control Court shall invite the tenant to
show cause for non compliance of the direction passed under
Section 12(1) of the Act.
6. Section 12(3) of the Act reads as follows:
"12. Payment or deposit of rent during the
pendency of proceedings for eviction. -
(1) xxx
(2) xxx
(3) 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".
7. Going by the Section, the Rent Control Court need not ask
the tenant to show cause. Whereas, on failure to make the
payment as directed under Section 12(1), the tenant can show
sufficient cause for its non compliance, and the Rent Control Court
can decide accordingly. If no cause was shown or the cause
shown was not liable to be accepted, the Rent Control Court can
order, stoppage of all further proceedings, and make an order
directing the tenant to put the landlords in possession of the
building.
8. In the case on hand, after passing an order under
Section 12(1) of the Act, the landlords filed I.A No.4 of 2022, for
passing an order under Section 12(3) of the Act. To that petition,
the revision petitioner did not show any cause, and that is why an
order of eviction was passed under Section 12(3) of the Act. Now
also, the revision petitioner has no case that the admitted arrears
of rent is paid in full.
9. From the available records, it could be seen that the
revision petitioner had sufficient opportunity to show cause for
non-compliance of the order in I.A No.1 of 2021. The tenant failed
to show cause, and hence an order was passed under
Section 12(3) of the Act.
We could not find any illegality or impropriety in the
impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority by
which the Section 12(3) order passed by the Rent Control Court
was affirmed.
In the result, the revision fails and hence dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
