CELINE SOURUNNY Vs. MARY PAUL ABRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the tenants in respect of a building belonging to the respondents. R. C. (OP.) 97 of 1976 was filed by the respondents for eviction of the revision petitioners on the ground of arrears of rent and also for re-construction. THE respondents are prepared to give the first option to the petitioners to have the reconstructed building allotted to them with the liability to pay fair rent. THE case of the respondents is that the building was let on a monthly rent of Rs. 50 payable on the first day of every English month and that the petitioners failed to pay the arrears of rent due from Ist March 1972. THE petitioners in their objections disputed their liability to be evicted. THEy admitted that the building was taken on rent by their father on 2nd January 1950, fixing a rent of Rs. 50. According to the petitioners, an amount of Rs. 950 was deposited on 13th September 1972 which was more than the actual amount due on that date. Various amounts were subsequently paid and the entire arrears were paid upto 20th August 1973. According to them, from 20th August 1973 till 3rd June 1976, the entire arrears came to Rs. 1500 and the same was paid on 3rd June 1976. THE rent from June, 1976 alone was due. THE petitioners expressed their preparedness to pay the same. On a motion made by the respondents subsequently, the petitioners were directed to pay the admitted arrears of rent under S. 12 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Holding that there was default to pay the admitted rent, the Rent Control Court stopped all further proceedings under S. 12 (3) of the Act and the petitioners were directed to put the respondents in possession of the building. THE petitioners thereupon challenged the above order before the Appellate authority the Appellate authority dismissed the appeal and gave two months to the petitioners to vacate the building. THE above order was confirmed in revision by the Second Additional District Judge, Ernakulam. ' THE revision petition is preferred against the above order.

(2.) UNDER S. 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court or to prefer an appeal under S. 18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building upto the date of payment of deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate authority, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) directs that if any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.

(3.) THE order passed by the Rent Control Court presumably under S. 12 does not satisfy the requirements of that section and is, therefore, set aside. THE Rent Control Court will restore the petition to file, follow the procedure under S. 12 and dispose of the petition, according to law. THE revision petition is allowed as above. Allowed. . .