M.M. THOMAS Vs. A.K. RAJAGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant/respondent in RCP No.26 of 2022 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Kannur, a proceeding instituted by the respondent herein/landlord claiming eviction under Sec. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Pending the proceedings, the landlord filed an application, IA No.1 of 2022 under Sec. 12 of the Act, for a direction to the tenant-petitioner to pay the arrears of Rs.46,10,000.00 alleging that the same is the rent due from the tenant.

(2.) The tenant objected to the same, contending that the Rent Control Petition itself was not maintainable as he was granted permission to run a crusher unit pursuant to a licence agreement dtd. 7/11/2016 for a period of five years subject to the conditions therein. The said deed stipulated that the tenant would pay Rs.1,30,000.00 every month, but as per clause 6, if the crusher unit could not be conducted for more than 15 days, the rent for the said period need not be paid. The tenant further contended that due to their difference of opinion, the respondent gave in writing to the Geologist to cancel the permit, and accordingly, the same was cancelled, and the unit could not function thereafter. The respondent tried to evict the petitioner, forcing him to approach the civil court, and an exparte injunction was also granted, which is pending. In short, the tenant's contention was there was no payable rent or licence fee to the petitioner, and the contention that rent was in arrears from 1/1/2017 to 1/1/2018 was denied. The further contention of the landlord that the tenant had not paid rent from 1/1/2017 to 1/1/2018 at the rate of Rs.1,30,000.00 or thereafter at the rate of Rs.1,75,000.00.was also denied. It is also the contention of the tenant that he had invested around Rs.3,50,00,000.00 for erecting fresh machinery.

(3.) The Rent Control Court found, as per order dtd. 23/2/2023, that the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted by the respondent in his counter statement and that the respondent had also admitted the rate of rent and the increase to Rs.1,75,000.00 and therefore, the admitted rate of rent was Rs.1,75,000.00. Therefore, on the assumption that the revision petitioner admits the landlord-tenant relationship and that the admitted rate of rent is Rs.1,75,000.00 though the agreement was not produced by the landlord at the time of filing the petition and it is not known whether the respondent had produced the same, the trial court directed the petitioner herein to pay rent at the rate of Rs.1,75,000.00 from 1/1/2021. It is also the direction to pay the rent from November 2021 to January 2023 at the rate of Rs.1,75,000.00 per month in lump sum (arrears of rent) within four weeks with a further direction to continue the pay the same rent within 15 days from the date on which it falls due. The said order of the Rent Control Court, purportedly under Sec. 12(1), was challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Additional District Judge IV, Thalassery, in Rent Control Appeal No.443 of 2023, wherein the appellate court relying on the judgment in Siddharthan v. Hassankutty Haji [1994 (2) KLT 419] found that no appeal would lie against a procedural order, which did not determine the rights of the parties finally or one which cannot be said to affect some right or liability and accordingly held that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.