PREMKUMAR Vs. SHAIJU JACOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises in this revision petition is whether the Rent Control Court was justified in passing an order under Sec. 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') to stop the proceedings consequent upon non-payment of the rent which falls due subsequently after clearing the defaulted arrears of rent by the tenant, even in the absence of such a direction in the order passed under Sec. 12(1) of the Act.

(2.) As is evident from the order passed by the Rent Control Court, Cherthala under Sec. 12(1) of the Act, the Rent Control Court only directed the tenant to pay arrears of rent as on the date of passing of that order within 30 days. The tenant cleared the entire arrears as on the date of passing of the order. However, he failed to pay the subsequent rent due after clearing the arrears. There was omission in the order passed by the RCC to direct the tenant to continue to pay the monthly rent that falls due till he vacates the petition schedule building. No doubt, statutorily, the tenant is liable to pay the rent that subsequently falls due, pending the proceedings.

(3.) The question is whether the default committed by the tenant in not honouring the statutory obligation to continue to pay monthly rent would result in stoppage of the proceedings under Sec. 12(3) of the Act, without there being a specific order under Sec. 12(1) of the Act. The law is clear and precise. It is only when a tenant commits default to pay the rent that subsequently falls due, by not honouring the order of the court, it would result in passing a final order under Sec. 12(3) of the Act. That exactly was done in this matter by the appellate authority by reversing the order of the Rent Control Court stopping the proceedings consequent upon the non-payment of rent which falls due subsequently.