MUNDAVALAPPIL MURALEEDHARAN Vs. KIZHAKKUMBRATH IBRAHIM HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 12 of Act 2/1965 by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority stopping all further proceedings in the Rent Control Appeal and directing the tenant to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlord in compliance of the directions already passed by the Appellate Authority in I.A No. 199/2009. The above I.A was filed by a landlord invoking Section 12 alleging that even during the pendency of the rent control appeal, the tenant had not chosen to discharge the rent which fell due subsequent to the institution of the RCP. The Rent Control Appeal itself was directed against the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 12. In this revision, the tenant impugnes the judgment of the Appellate Authority on various grounds. Mr. K.P. Sarvothaman, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, addressed us extensively on the basis of the grounds raised in the RCR and all his submissions were stiffly resisted by Mr. R.Surendran, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) It will be stated immediately that having regard to the contours of Section 20 which is revisional in nature, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference with the judgment of the Appellate Authority. It is the statutory obligation of the tenant who has preferred appeal against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court to pay the entire arrears of rent admitted by him and also the rent which fell due subsequently to the landlord. In the instant case, when it is brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority that the tenant has not paid the admitted arrears of rent or the rent which fell due subsequently, the Appellate Authority is to pass a direction to the tenant to pay the rent which has fallen due subsequently giving a minimum period of one month as regards arrears of rent and two weeks as regards the rent which has fallen due subsequently. We notice that in the instant case, on being convinced that the tenant has not paid the rent which fell due subsequently, the Appellate Authority granted to the petitioner sufficient time for discharging the rent which fell due subsequently. It is seen that several chances were given for payment. It is thereafter the Appellate Authority noticed that the tenant had not shown any cause against the passage of summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) that I.A No. 199/2009 filed by the landlord was allowed. On the basis of the order in I.A No. 199/2009, the Appellate Authority was bound to stop all further proceedings in the appeal and direct the tenant to put the landlord back in possession. We do not find any procedural or other illegality in the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and ordinarily we would not have interfered with the above judgment at all.

(3.) But we notice that the only substantive ground invoked in the RCP by the respondent/landlord is the ground of arrears of rent. Thus the best that the landlord could have aspired for in the RCP was an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b). Orders of eviction under Section 11(2)(b), it is well known, are tentative which are liable to be vacated by the Rent Control Court on the tenant depositing the arrears of rent, interest and cost. We also notice that the building in question is a commercial building in which the tenant is doing some business and eking out his lively hood. Therefore, we are of the view that by way of indulgence, relief can be given to the revision petitioner, but only on very stringent terms. Adv. Sri. R. Surendran, learned Counsel for the respondent, answering a query posed by us submitted that as on today the arrears of rent due in respect of the building from the revision petitioner will be Rs. 16,273/-, exclusive of the statutory interest. We are of the view that as a condition for getting relief, the revision petitioner shall immediately pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- to the respondent.