SANAL KUMAR N. Vs. MRS. LATHA A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 3.1.2018 in R.C.A.No.4 of 2015 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam is under challenge in this revision petition. The revision petitioner was the appellant therein. He filed the said appeal feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam in R.C.P.No.134 of 2013 on a petition filed by the respondent seeking his ejection from the petition schedule rooms under section 11(3) and 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short 'the Act'). As per order dated 28.10.2014, the rent control petition was allowed holding that the revision petitioner was liable to pay rent from November 2011 till Ext.A6 notice, after deducting Rs. 40,000/- admittedly received by the landlord towards rent. Order was also passed in favour of the respondent landlord under section 11(3) of the Act. I.A.No.5075/2015 was filed in RCA by the revision petitioner. Admittedly, order dated 17.10.2017 was passed in the said I.A. It would reveal that earlier the revision petitioner herein had sought time for payment of admitted arrears. It is stated in the said order that reasonable time was granted even prior to 17.10.2017. Still reckoning the facts and circumstances, further time was granted from 17.10.2017 to the revision petitioner, as per the said order, to deposit/pay the admitted arrears of rent and for reporting compliance, the matter was posted to 28.11.2017. The impugned order dated 3.1.2018 would reveal that when the matter was taken up for consideration, the appellant was absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Taking note of the fact that as per the order in I.A.5075/2015, the Rent Control Court had passed an order stopping all further proceedings and the appellant was directed to put the respondent in possession of the building. Even when this matter is taken up for consideration, the revision petitioner is not having a case that the admitted arrears of rent was paid.

(2.) It is not in dispute that invoking the power under section 12 of the Act, the appellate authority stopped further proceedings and directed the petitioner to put the respondent in possession owing to his failure to deposit/pay due arrears. The petitioner is also not having a case that no time was granted by the appellate authority for effecting deposit/payment of arrears or rent. As is discernible from the order referred above, time was granted in that regard and subsequently, it was extended. Despite the grant of further time, the revision petitioner had failed to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. In such circumstances, when the tenant had failed to pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent in terms of order passed under section 12 and the tenant had also failed to show sufficient cause therefor, it would be open to the appellate authority to stop all further proceedings. In fact, such an order was also passed in this case. When the matter was taken up for consideration thereafter on 3.1.2018, the appellant was not present and there was no representation on his behalf. As noticed hereinbefore, till today, there is no case for the petitioner that he had deposited/paid the admitted arrears of rent. In the light of the said factual position obtained in this case, we do not find any reason to hold that the appellate authority had committed an error or illegality warranting interference in exercise of the revisional power. In fact, it is evident that even without paying or depositing the arrears, the appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner herein. Taking into account all the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that order dated 3.1.2018 in R.C.A.No.4/2015 calls for no interference. In such circumstances, this revision petition is liable to fail.

(3.) When we are about to part with the order, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought some reasonable time for the revision petitioner to give vacant possession of the tenanted premises. We are inclined to grant three months' time from today in that regard provided the revision petitioner files an affidavit carrying an undertaking that he would give vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord on the expiry of the aforesaid period itself. Such an affidavit shall be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be a further condition to the revision petitioner that he shall pay the rent at the admitted rate during the aforesaid period. It is made clear that in the event of two consecutive default in payment of rent, as mentioned above, this benefit would stand automatically recalled. Subject to the above, this revision petition is dismissed.