C.P.RASHEED Vs. K.T.CHANDUKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the first respondent in R.C.P.No.73 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. The first respondent herein along with one P. Sekharan instituted R.C.P.No.73 of 2008 praying for an order of eviction under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. After the rent control petition was instituted, P. Sekharan passed away and thereupon his wife and children were impleaded as supplemental petitioners 3 to 8 as per order passed on I.A.No.2221 of 2010 in R.C.P.No.73 of 2008. The petitioners had in the rent control petition averred that they purchased the petition schedule building in an auction conducted by the Kerala Financial Corporation in exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. It was stated that the sale in their favour was confirmed and they were put in possession of the petition schedule building on 7.4.2006. The property was also registered in their names on 23.1.2007 as per document No.1192 of 2007 of Sub Registry Office, West Hill. The petitioners in the rent control petition had further averred that rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/ - per mensem is due from the tenant from 1.4.2006 onwards. They also contended that they bonafide need the petition schedule building for establishing a super market for their children.

(2.) Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner herein/first respondent in the rent control petition, entered appearance and filed a counter statement wherein he contended that rent upto June 2008 has been paid to M/s. Kiran Babu and Mani and receipts have been obtained. He further contended that he had paid the sum of Rs.3,00,000/ - as advance to M/s. Kiran Babu and Mani and that the petition schedule premises was taken on lease by him along with Imbichi Mammu, Basheer and Rafeeque. He contended that they are necessary parties to the rent control petition. He further contended that he had paid the sum of Rs.3,250/ - on 26.3.2007 and Rs.6,750/ - on 29.3.2008 at Puthiyangadi Village Office towards repayment of the debt due to Kerala Financial Corporation. He had further averred that he stopped paying rent from July, 2008 onwards on coming to know about the sale in favour of the petitioners in the rent control petition. In view of the contentions raised by the tenant in the rent control petition that the property was taken on lease by him along with Imbichi Mammu, Basheer and Rafeeque, Imbichi Mamu was impleaded as the supplemental second respondent, P.K. Rafeeque as the supplemental fourth respondent and one N. Muhammed Shafi as the supplemental third respondent. After considering the rival contentions and the evidence oral and documentary on record, the rent control court held that the tenant had kept rent in arrears at the rate of Rs.3,000/ - per mensem from June, 2006 onwards. The contention of the tenant that they had paid the sum of Rs.3,00,000/ - as advance to M/s. Kiran Babu and Mani was not accepted in the absence of evidence in that regard. In view of the fact that the landlords did not press the prayer for eviction under section 11(3) of the Act, in the light of the findings entered as regards arrears of rent, an order of eviction under section 11(2)(b) of the Act was passed on 10.4.2012.

(3.) Challenging the order of eviction, the first respondent in the rent control petition (petitioner herein) filed R.C.A.No.190 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. In the appeal, the landlords filed I.A.No.1894 of 2014 under section 12 of the Act praying for an order directing the appellant/tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. When the said application came up for counter and hearing on 12.12.2014, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is prepared to pay the admitted arrears of rent. The said submission was recorded and the application was adjourned for payment, to 20.1.2015. On that day as there was no representation it was adjourned to 21.1.2015. On 21.1.2015 also, learned counsel for the appellant was not present. There was also no representation on his behalf. The deposit of admitted arrears had also not been made. The appellant did not also show cause as to why an order under section 12(3) of the Act should not be passed against him. In such circumstances, the rent control appellate authority allowed I.A.No.1894 of 2014 by order passed on 21.1.2015, stopped all further proceedings in R.C.A.No.190 of 2012 and directed the tenant to put the landlords in possession of the petition schedule building within one month from that date. The appellant in R.C.A.No.190 of 2012, who is the first respondent in R.C.P.No.73 of 2008 referred to above, has aggrieved thereby, filed this revision petition.