ISMAIL Vs. SUDHAKARA SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is in revision against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal which he had filed against the order of the Rent Control Court and simultaneously directing him to surrender possession of the petition schedule building within a period of one month from the date of the judgment.

(2.) The application before the Rent Control Court was for fixation of fair rent under S.5 of Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Court after enquiry would fix the fair rent of the building, which is situated in Kanhangad town, at Rs.3,000/- per month as against the contract rent of Rs.1,600/- per mensem. The tenant preferred appeal RCA No. 4/2006 against the order of the Rent Control Court. In the appeal, the landlord filed IA No. 12/2007 under S.12 for directing the appellant to pay the arrears of rent as well as the rent which fell due subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. The Appellate Authority passed an order directing the tenant to make the payment. But, no payment was made by the revision petitioner. It is on the reason that there is no full compliance with the direction of the Appellate Authority to pay the admitted arrears of rent and rent that fell due subsequently that the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal and directing eviction has been passed.

(3.) We have heard the submissions of Sri. M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Sri. Suresh Kumar Kodoth, learned counsel for the respondent who had lodged caveat on behalf of the respondent. Drawing our attention to S.12 of Act 2 of 1965, Sri. Gopikrishnan Nambiar submitted that the learned Appellate Authority did not have jurisdiction to invoke S.12 inasmuch as the proceedings were not for eviction, but were for fixation of fair rent. Sri. Suresh Kumar Kodoth per contra would justify the impugned judgment. He submitted that having regard to the principles of justice, equity and good conscience which are to govern the proceedings before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in terms of sub-rule 8 of R.11 of the Statutory Rules, it was necessary that the tenant, who is pursuing or defending any proceedings whether it before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority pays atleast the rent which he admits to be in arrears.