P NALLA THAMPY THERA Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this court seeking a declaration that sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 is unconstitutional. A writ of certiorari was also sought for to quash the order of the Rent Control Court, Sultanbattery dated 29-10-2001 in I.A. 595/01 since the same is in violation of the various decisions of the Supreme Court. The party appeared in person. He is a tenant in the rented premises of 1070, 1071/VI, Chungam, Sultanbattery. According to him when he took the building on rent on 16-7-1988 he had paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as rent advance. Claiming arrears of rent landlord approached the Rent Control Court for eviction. Even though eviction was ordered the tenant subsequently remitted a portion of the arrears of rent. With regard to the balance amount due tenant took up a contention before the Rent Control Court that an advance of Rs. 25,000/- is already lying with the tenant and if it is adjusted there will not be any arrears. The plea was rejected by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. Consequently, he approached this court and filed C.R.P. 1097 of 1997 which was disposed of by this court on 26-2-2000 stating as follows :

(2.) PETITIONER placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Modern Hotel, Gudur v. K. Radhakrishnaiah, 1989(2) RCR(Rent) 306 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC 1510, K. Narasimha Rao v. T.M. Nasimuddin Ahmed, AIR 1996 SC 1214 : 1996(1) RCR(Rent) 395 (SC) and contended that landlord was not justified in not adjusting advance amount towards rent arrears. According to him, statutorily he is liable to pay only one month's rent. The balance is liable to be adjusted. Petitioner also submitted this court in Issac Ninan's case (supra) had quashed only part of Section 8 of the Rent Control Act pertaining to fair rent. The rest of the section stands. Counsel submitted Section 12(3) directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession in case there is arrears of rent especially when advance amounts paid by the tenant is with the landlord is illegal and unconstitutional.

(3.) WE are of the view the decisions cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. Those are all cases where there is specific provision in the Andhra Pradesh as well as Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act which obliges the landlord to keep only one month's rent as advance just like Section 8 of the Kerala Rent Control Act. However, as far as Kerala Rent Control Act is concerned the said Section has already been struck down. Under such circumstance reliance placed on the above mentioned decisions of the Supreme Court is misplaced. We find no illegality in the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 12 in ordering eviction in case of arrears of rent. Under such circumstances we find no reason to entertain this writ petition and the same would stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.