THAMPAN OOMMEN Vs. PONNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this Rent Control Revision is whether the Rent Control Court can strike off the defence of the tenant for non payment of admitted arrears of rent, instead of taking recourse to S. 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent/landlady filed a Rent Control Petition against the petitioner/tenant under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The lease of the building was on 3.5.2005 fixing a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/-. Rs. 50,000/- was paid as security deposit by the tenant. It was alleged by the landlady, a widow, that she wanted to settle at Thiruvananthapuram and to set up residence in the petition schedule building. The landlady also alleged that the tenant made alterations to the building, so as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently.

(2.) The tenant denied the bona fide need. He also denied the ground raised under S. 11(4)(ii)of the Act. The tenant runs tuition classes in English in the petition schedule building and also resides in that building. On 3.2.2010, the Rent Control Court passed an order directing the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent and also to deposit the rent which subsequently fell due. No application was filed by the landlady under S. 12(1) of the Act. The Rent Control Petition was listed for trial on 1.4.2013. On that date, the Rent Control Court struck off the defence of the tenant on the ground that the tenant failed to deposit the admitted arrears of rent as ordered to be paid. Thereafter, the Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition on the merits. In the order of the Rent Control Court, the only discussion on the merits of the case is the following:

(3.) The order passed by the Rent Control Court has the characteristics of an ex-parte order.