A AMMACHI Vs. PATHUMUTHU UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved here is one of interpretation of S.12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965. The material portion of that section reads:

(2.) Now to the facts of the case. The contract rent for the building was Rs. 30 per month. In the objection filed by the tenant she said that as per subsequent contract between the parties she had effected improvements worth Rs. 2,760 on the building and the property where it is situate and that future rent would, become due and payable only on the liquidation of that debt. The allegation in the petition filed under S.11 of the Act is that Rs. 1,110 is due by way of arrears of rent. In the objection what is stated is that besides wiping off the rent which has so far accrued, there is still a balance of Rs. 1,785 standing to the credit of the tenant and that is sufficient to satisfy future rent for a long time to come. When such is the state of the pleadings, would the court be justified in ordering eviction under S.12(3) of the Act And that exactly is what the lower courts have now , done.

(3.) The provisions of S.12 are intended for the benefit of the landlord. If on the tenant's own admission rent is due from him there is no justification for the tenant withholding payment of it to the landlord until the termination of the proceedings. Therefore it is provided by S.12 that he should pay or deposit it and that if he does not do it all future proceedings have to be stopped and eviction has to be ordered. But if, according to the tenant, nothing is really due from him or payable by him until the question of his liability is decided should he be ordered to pay the rent According to the general law, a tenant is entitled to be in possession of the building until the last pie due to him as value of improvements is paid. In the present case there is the contract between the parties also It looks unjust in such circumstances to order the tenant to make the payment.