RAGINI VENUGOPAL Vs. N.S.S. KARAYOGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Concurrent decisions in an application under Sec. 11(2)(c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) to vacate an order of eviction passed under Sec. 11(2)(b) are under challenge in this revision petition preferred under Sec. 20 of the Act. The tenant in the proceedings is the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent obtained an order of eviction against the petitioner under Sec. 11(2)(b) of the Act in R.C.P.No.178 of 2015. The finding in the order of eviction was that the petitioner has not paid the rent due in respect of the premises involved at the rate of Rs.1,660.00 per month for the period from April, 2015 to July, 2015. The tenant challenged the said order in R.C.A.No.34 of 2018. During pendency of the appeal, the tenant deposited the rent for the period from April, 2015 to November, 2018, namely, Rs.73,040.00. R.C.A.No. 34 of 2018 was nevertheless dismissed on 17/6/2019. The tenant challenged the said decision of the Appellate Authority in R.C.Rev.No.2 of 2020 before this Court. Although the said revision was dismissed, this Court chose to grant six months time to the petitioner to vacate the premises, on condition that she shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court undertaking to vacate the premises within six months and shall deposit the arrears within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner did not avail the benefit of time granted by this Court to vacate the premises. Instead, she preferred I.A.No.1 of 2022 in the eviction petition under Sec. 11(2)(c) of the Act to vacate the order of eviction on the ground that she has deposited the arrears of rent required for the said purpose. The Rent Control Court dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2022 taking the stand that in light of the order of this Court in R.C.Rev.No.2 of 2020 granting time to the petitioner to vacate the premises, the application cannot be entertained. The petitioner challenged the order in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in appeal. She has also preferred R.P.No.733 of 2022 in the meanwhile seeking review of the order in R.C.Rev.No.2 of 2020 insofar as it relates to the directions therein for vacating the premises. The review petition was disposed of by this Court clarifying that the direction in the order in R.C.Rev.No.2 of 2020 granting time to the petitioner will not stand in her way in pursuing her statutory remedy under Sec. 11(2)(c) to get the order vacated. Thereafter, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, even though the Appellate Authority noticed the order in R.P.No.733 of 2022, dismissed the appeal taking the view that the petitioner ought to have deposited the arrears of rent up-to-date within one month from the date of the order in R.C.Rev.No.2 of 2020 and inasmuch as the petitioner has not deposited the up-to-date rent within one month from the date of the order in R.C.Rev.No.2 of 2020, she is not entitled to any relief in the application filed by her under Sec. 11(2)(c). The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the rent to be deposited for vacating an order of eviction under Sec. 11(2)(b) of the Act in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 11(2)(c) is the rent found to be in arrears, on the basis of which the order of eviction was passed, and inasmuch as the petitioner has deposited the said arrears during the pendency of the appeal preferred against the order of eviction itself, the authorities below ought to have vacated the eviction order. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in terms of the order in R.P.No.733 of 2022, this Court only permitted the petitioner to prefer an application under Sec. 11(2)(c) and the directions in the order in R.C.Rev.No.2 of 2020 for deposit of arrears of rent have not been varied or reviewed. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, in the circumstances, ought to have deposited the arrears of rent up-to-date within one month from the date of the order and inasmuch as the petitioner has not resorted to the said course, she is not entitled to any relief in the application preferred under Sec. 11(2)(c).