MADHAVAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellate Authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short 'the Act') granted more time to a tenant to pay interest on the arrears of rent deposited by the tenant under S.11(2)(c) of the Act. The District Court, in revision, interfered with the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority. The questions raised in this Original Petition are the following: (1) Is it incumbent on a tenant to pay or deposit interest alone with the arrears of rent as per S.11(2)(c) of the Act, when there is no contract to pay such interest and also when there is no direction in the order of eviction regarding payment of interest (2) Can the Appellate Authority grant further time to the tenant when the Rent Control Court has already granted extension of time to make the deposit under the aforesaid clause. Answers to those two questions will be helpful to dispose of this Original Petition filed by the tenant under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Facts of the case, relevant for this Original Petition, are the following: The Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction on 29-6-1979 on the ground under S.11(2) of the Act. A period of two months was fixed for vacating the order by making the deposit under clause (c) of the sub-section, but the tenant failed to make the deposit within the said time. When the landlord took out execution proceedings, the tenant filed an application before the Rent Control Court for extension of time to deposit the arrears of rent. The time prayed for was granted, but the Rent Control Court expressed the view that the tenant has no liability to pay interest since the agreement did not provide for interest and since no direction has been made in the order of eviction regarding interest. The tenant deposited the amount fixed by the Rent Control Court within the time so extended. The aggrieved landlord filed an appeal against the said order. The appellate authority directed the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent till the disposal of the appeal and in compliance with the said direction, the tenant made the deposit in the appellate court. The amount so deposited included the interest also. The Appellate Authority after extending time for making such deposit till the date of deposit, dismissed the appeal. But the District Judge, in revision, was not disposed to sustain the order of the Appellate Authority mainly on the ground that no extension of time should have been granted by the Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred by the landlord, that too without even an application filed by the tenant in that behalf. It was also observed by the learned District Judge that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to ask the tenant to deposit the amount and hence extension of time has been improperly granted by the appellate authority. Learned District Judge did not sustain the order of the Rent Control Court also, since in bis view the said court did not exercise its discretion properly by granting extension of time. Consequently the orders of both the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority were set aside by the learned District Judge.

(3.) S.11(2)(b) envisages the ground of default in paying the rent as one sufficient to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. If the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him, within the time "fixed in the agreement of tenancy with bis landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable", the order contemplated in the sub-section can be passed. This means that the tenant's liability to pay or tender the arrears of rent is irrespective of whether there is any agreement of tenancy or not regarding time for, payment. The proviso to clause (b) has put an embargo on the filing of an application for the ground envisaged thereunder. An application under the said sub-section can be filed only it the landlord has sent a notice by registered post to the tenant intimating him of the default and the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent together with interest at six percent per annum and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within 15 days of the receipt of the notice or the refusal thereof. The proviso, thus, creates a I ability on the tenant to pay interest at six percent per annum on the arrears of rent. It is immaterial whether there is any stipulation in the agreement of tenancy to pay interest or whether the stipulation is to pay interest at a lesser or higher rate. The tenant's liability to pay interest at six percent per annum cannot thus be avoided if the tenant wants to avoid an order of eviction against him on the ground of arrears of rent. S.11(2)(c) has to be interpreted in the light of the aforesaid proviso. When clause (c) enjoins on the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings within the period mentioned in the statute for within such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its discretion allow) no deposit without the interest portion, at the rate of six percent per annum can be countenanced as sufficient to supercede the order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Hence the first question is answered in the affirmative.