K S BINURAJ Vs. A H THALISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in a Rent Control Eviction Petition, who is the revision petitioner and who is directed to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises, further stopping the proceedings due to the non payment of the rent during the pendency of the appeal, is challenging the order passed under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965, by the Appellate Authority in RCA 11/2009.

(2.) The respondent herein applied for an order of eviction invoking Section 11(3) of the Act on the ground of 'bonafide need'. That application is still pending and contested by the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner in course of the proceedings, pending before the Rent Control Court, raised a dispute of title to the landlord by filing I.A.122/2009 in RCP 53/2008. The Rent Control Court by its order dated 27th January, 2009, after adjudication, held that the denial of title of the landlord/petitioner in RCP 53/2008 is not bonafide. Challenging the said order, the tenant filed RCA 11/2009. The appeal was filed on 21.02.2009. In that appeal, the respondent/landlord filed I.A.2312/2009 under Section 12 of the Act seeking a direction to the tenant (revision petitioner herein) to pay the admitted arrears of rent from 2008 April to March, 2009 amounting to Rs.2,76,000/-. That application was filed on 21.03.2009. Objections were filed by the tenant inter alia contending that, the title of the landlord was challenged and hence he is not bound to pay the rent during the pendency of the appeal. During the course of hearing, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was tendered on 01.06.2009 and accepted by the landlord through the Counsel and the tenant promised to pay the balance before 30.06.2009 as recorded by the Court below in the impugned order. Therefore, when the matter came up on 30.06.2009, the Court passed an order as follows:-

(3.) Thereafter on 25.08.2009, the landlord filed a memo, serving copy to the tenant, stating that the rent due upto the month of August, would come to Rs.3,91,000/-. But the tenant paid only Rs.2,53,000/- and Rs.1,38,000/- was still due. Obviously, the payment of Rs.2,53,000/- made by the tenant was in the mean time prior to 25.08.2009. As is seen from the order, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid on 01.06.2009 and subsequently as stated by the Counsel for the revision petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,03,000/- was paid on 20.07.2009. Thus receipt of the two amounts (Rs.2,53,000/-) is admitted by the landlord as stated in his memo and referred to in the order impugned. The appellate authority in such circumstances, found that the arrears of Rs.1,38,000/- as on August, 2009 have not cleared and that the tenant has not complied with the direction earlier made. It may be noticed that after 25.08.2009, the matter stood adjourned to 10th September, 2009, the date on which the impugned order was passed. It is not disputed that actual balance amount due as arrears of rent of Rs.1,38,000/- was as such quantified in its order dated 25.08.2009. Eventually as stated earlier, for non compliance of the directions issued, the appellate authority, invoking power under Section 12 (3) of the Act, directed the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises. Hence this revision.