GIREESH Vs. ANTONY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, we are called upon to answer an interesting question as to whether the arrears of admitted rent decreed by a civil court, in a suit filed by the landlord, is liable to be excluded while computing the admitted arrears of rent under Sec. 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The revision petitioner/tenant is impugning the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No.42 of 2018, invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court, under Sec. 20 of the Act.

(3.) Brief facts necessary for the revision are as follows, referring the parties according to their status in RCP No.18 of 2016: The petitioner/landlord filed RCP No.18 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court, Chalakudy, in order to evict the respondent/tenant from the tenanted premises, under Ss. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The respondent remained ex parte, and based on the affidavit and documents produced by the petitioner, the Rent Control Court allowed the RCP under Sec. 11(3) of the Act, and directed the respondent to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises within one month. Thereafter the respondent filed petition to set aside the ex parte order but it was dismissed. Thereupon the respondent preferred RCA No.42 of 2018 with a prayer to stay the execution proceedings. Stay was granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on deposit of Rs.87,500.00 towards arrears of rent. In the RCA, the landlord filed I.A No.2 of 2022 under Sec. 12(1) of the Act, for directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. That petition was allowed on 15/6/2022, directing the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent @ Rs.2,500.00 per month from May, 2015 till May, 2022 by 14/7/2022 and to continue payment of admitted rent till the disposal of the appeal. Since the respondent/tenant did not comply with that direction, a show cause notice was issued against him. Since he failed to deposit the amount or to show cause for the non-remittance, the Rent Control Appellate Authority stopped further proceedings in the appeal, and the respondent/tenant was directed to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises under Sec. 12(3) of the Act, and that is the order impugned in this revision.