C V XAVIER Vs. FRANCIS LEONARD PAPPALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is a tenant of a building situate in the Cochin Corporation area and of which the respondent is the landlord. On the ground that the tenant had left the rent in arrears a petition was moved for his eviction under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Soon after the return of notice on the petition, an objection was filed by the tenant to the application for eviction and that was on 3-6-1968. On 16-7-1968 to which date the case was adjourned the court passed an order directing deposit of all arrears of rent due from the tenant on or before 19 8 1968. It was not so deposited and on 20-8-1968 the court passed an order under S.12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 stopping all further proceedings and ordering eviction of the tenant. It is that order which was challenged in appeal and subsequently in revision. That was confirmed both by the appellate and revisional authorities. That is under challenge in the Civil Revision Petition. That was referred to by a learned Single Judge of this court to the Division Bench for the reason that the question raised is one of general importance The contention of the revision petitioner is that though there was default in the payment of rent on the specified date, in view of the expression "unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary" occurring in sub-s.(3) of S.12 of the Act the tenant was entitled to a further opportunity to show cause for non compliance with the order.

(2.) It is apparent that the court which passed the order under S.12(2) to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 19 8 1968 passed the order under S.12(3) by reason of the default in payment of the rent on the due date. The relevant portion of the order of the Rent Controller reads:

(3.) The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner before us is that the court, in passing the order of eviction on the failure to deposit the arrears of rent on 19-8-1968, was acting in contravention of the provisions of S.12(3) of the Act. That is because the court had a duty to furnish a reasonable opportunity to the tenant to show cause to the contrary, and that opportunity had not been provided. It is further said that the order to be passed by the Munsiff under S.12(3) contemplates consideration of the circumstances with a view to determine whether there was sufficient cause to the contrary within the meaning of that expression under S.12(3) of the Act and in the order of the Rent Control Court, which is under challenge here, there was no such consideration.