Kerala High Court
S.R. Balasubramanian vs Krishnanunni 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. 27 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.01.2023 IN RCA NO.7 OF 2021 OF
THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD AND ORDER
DATED 11.08.2021 IN I.A.NO.804 OF 2021 IN RCP NO.23 OF 2020
OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF), PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/TENANT/RESPONDENT:
S.R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, AGED 67 YEARS,
S/O RAMANUNNI, ARPATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, DURGA STREET,
KANNAKI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA POST,
PALAKKAD TALUK, PIN - 678012.
BY ADV.SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
ADV.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
ADV.GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/LANDLORD/PETITIONER:
KRISHNANUNNI, AGED 58 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAVI @
SADASIVAN, S/O KRISHNA MOOTHAN, KRISHNA NIVAS,
MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678012.
BY ADV RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY(K/1153/1994) (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.27 of 2023 2
P.B SURESHKUMAR &
SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
Rent Control Revision No.27 of 2023
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2023
ORDER
Sophy Thomas, J.
The tenant who suffered an order under Section 12(3) of the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'), is the revision petitioner herein, and the
respondent is the landlord.
2. The landlord filed RCP No.23 of 2020 before the Rent
Control Court, Palakkad, for evicting the tenant under
Section 11(4)(v) of the Act. Pending RCP, he filed I.A No.804 of
2021 under Section 12 of the Act, alleging that the rent was in
arrears. Admittedly, the monthly rent agreed was Rs.2,535/-.
According to the landlord, the rent was in arrears from August
2020 to February 2021. In I.A No.804 of 2021, the tenant was
asked to deposit Rs.17,745/- being the admitted arrears of rent.
The tenant filed objection to that I.A inter alia contending that
during Covid-19 pandemic, his business was running at a loss,
and so, he was not able to pay the rent promptly. He sought six
months time to remit the arrears of rent. But, the Rent Control
Court, ignoring his objection, allowed I.A No.804 of 2021, and
directed him to pay the arrears of rent on or before 03.06.2021.
He could not remit the arrears of rent on or before 03.06.2021, as
directed. On 11.08.2021, the Rent Control Court, finding that no
cause was shown by the tenant for not depositing the admitted
arrears of rent, passed an order under Section 12(3) of the Act,
stopping further proceedings in RCP No.23 of 2020, and directing
the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the petition
schedule property.
3. The tenant took the matter in appeal before the Rent
Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad as RCA No.7 of 2021. The
appellate authority confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court
and dismissed the appeal. The appellate court also was of the
view that no sufficient cause was shown by the tenant, for not
complying with the direction to pay the arrears of rent, or to
extend the date as prayed for.
4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate authority, the
tenant is before us, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court.
5. Heard learned counsel Sri.S. Vinod Bhat, appearing for
the revision petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Rajesh
Sivaramankutty, appearing for the respondent.
6. The main grievance advanced by the revision
petitioner/tenant is that, the objection filed by him to I.A No.804
of 2021 was not considered by the Rent Control Court, while
passing the order under Section 12(3) of the Act. According to
him, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the consequential lockdown
affected business worldwide, and he was also not an exception.
He was finding it difficult even to meet his daily needs, as his
business was dull during that period. In the objection, he sought
six months time to pay the arrears of rent. Ignoring his
objection, the Rent Control Court directed him to pay the arrears
on or before 03.06.2021.
7. The allegation that the Rent Control Court totally ignored
the objection filed by the tenant to I.A No.804 of 2021 is not
correct. In the order in I.A No.804 of 2021 dated 03.04.2021, the
objection filed by the tenant is extracted as follows:
"Petitioner is not entitled to get the arrears of
rent as claimed. The computation of arrears of rent
by the petitioner is incorrect. The income of
respondent from his business is affected due to
threat of Covid-19 and the same is insufficient for his
daily needs. Respondent require time of 6 months to
pay the admitted arrears of rent. Hence the
respondent prayed to dismiss the application with
costs".
So, obviously, the Rent Control Court was aware of the objection
filed by the tenant, and it was considered also but of course not in
his favour.
8. The tenant has got a case that, after the order in I.A
No.804 of 2021 directing him to pay the arrears of rent on or
before 03.06.2021, he was not given an opportunity to show
cause. As per Section 12(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court
need not direct the tenant to show cause for non compliance of
the direction. If the tenant fails to deposit the arrears of rent as
directed by the Rent Control Court, the tenant can show cause, if
any, for its non compliance. Admittedly, after the order in I.A
No.804 of 2021, no cause was shown by the tenant, for not
complying with the direction to deposit the arrears on or before
03.06.2021.
9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is of the view
that, the objection filed by the tenant to I.A No.804 of 2021
should have been treated as sufficient cause for non compliance
of the direction. It is true that the Rent Control Court did not
treat the objection filed by the tenant in I.A No.804 of 2021, as
the cause for non compliance of the order passed under
Section 12(1) of the Act, while passing the order under
Section 12(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court was not duty
bound to treat the contentions taken up by the tenant in the
objection to Section 12(1) petition, as the cause shown by him
under Section 12(3) of the Act. Even then, considering the fact
that the period during which the tenant was directed to deposit
the arrears of rent, was Covid affected period with frequent
lockdowns, his case that, his business was badly affected, need
not be disbelieved. His prayer was to grant six months time to
deposit the arrears of rent. Admittedly, the tenant deposited the
arrears of rent before the Rent Control Court on 13.09.2021. So,
we could see bonafides in the objection filed by the tenant that he
was not able to pay the arrears of rent, because of loss of
business during Covid-19 pandemic, and the fact that he
deposited the arrears on 13.09.2021, gives credibility to his
contentions.
10. Considering the fact that the tenant was in financial
crisis during Covid-19 pandemic, and he remitted the arrears of
rent as early as on 13.09.2021, we are of the view that he could
be given an opportunity to contest the Rent Control Petition to
have a decision on merits.
In the result, the revision is allowed, setting aside the
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.7 of
2021. Consequentially, the order of the Rent Control Court in RCP
No.23 of 2020 dated 11.08.2021 also stands set aside. The Rent
Control Court is directed to restore the RCP, and to dispose the
same in accordance with law, within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are
directed to appear before the Rent Control Court on 12.04.2023.
Sd/-
P.B SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
