JAMES PUNNAPUZHA Vs. SABITHA RAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of some importance arises in this revision filed by the tenant challenging the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming a summary order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) of Act 2 of 1965 by the Rent Control Court.

(2.) We are adverting to the facts only to the extent necessary for deciding this revision. The revision petitioner tenant was sought to be evicted on the grounds of arrears of rent and the ground of bonafide need for own occupation (Section 11(2) and Section 11(3). As it was noticed that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent which had fallen due subsequent to the filing of the RCP and the rate of rent which was beyond dispute, the landlord filed I.A. No. 8594 of 2007 under Section 12 seeking a direction for deposit of the admitted arrears and for consequential orders including summary order of eviction under Section 12(3). To that I.A., the revision petitioner tenant filed counter contending that the contract rent is not Rs. 2292/- per mensem as alleged by the landlord and that the same is only Rs. 1,311/- per mensem. It was also contended that a substantial amount had been deposited by the tenant with the landlord at the time of the entrustment and the tenant is entitled to ad just the rent in arrears against those amounts under deposit. The Rent Control Court on 5.11.2007 after hearing both sides noticed that some rent was admittedly in arrears and that the rent at the admitted rate which fell due subsequent to the filing of the RCR had not been paid. Accordingly, the court passed an order on 5.11.2007 directing the tenant to pay the admitted arrears by 11.2.2007. The above order was obviously passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(1). The tenant did not pay any amount towards arrears of rent or towards the rent which fell due subsequent to the filing of the RCP by 11.12.2007. The case was accordingly adjourned to 12.12.2007 affording opportunity to the tenant to show cause against the passage of a summary order of eviction. On 12.12.2007 the tenant filed an affidavit purporting to show cause against the proposed summary order of eviction. In paragraph (2) of that affidavit this is what the tenant has stated:

(3.) The Rent Control Court did not accept the cause shown by the tenant and passed a summary order of eviction under Section 12(3). According to the Rent Control Court, financial difficulty of the tenant in paying the rent cannot be sufficient cause within the contemplation of Section 12(3). The tenant preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority.