CARONA LTD Vs. SUJATHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.B. Suresh Kumar for the petitioner and Mr. V. Giri for the respondent.

(2.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order in LA. 2393 of 19-99 in RCA No. 109 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Court), Thiruvananthapuram, dated 18-2-1999 vacating the order of stay already granted by the appellant authority on the ground that the petitioner/ tenant had not deposited the arrears of rent as ordered by the appellate authority.

(3.) AT the time of hearing it was submitted by counsel for the landlord that the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,777/- for 36 months from April, 1996 to March, 1999 has not been deposited by the tenant as on date. Learned counsel for the tenant submitted that because of the acute financial constraints during the last few years, the tenant could not pay the rent and that the unit has been declared by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction as per the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. It is further submitted that a scheme contemplated under S.17 of the said Act is under implementation in respect of the petitioner Company. It is also submitted that due to the financial constraints the Company could not deposit the arrears of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller within the stipulated time and, hence, the petitioner filed LA. No.64261 of 1998 for enlargement of the time fixed for deposit of arrears of rent, which was dismissed and eviction was ordered under S.12(3) of the Act by the Rent Controller. Counsel for the petitioner contended that under S.12(3) of the Act, if any tenant fails to deposit the rent as ordered under S.12, the tenant has to be given an opportunity to show cause why the penal consequences contemplated under S.12(3) of the Act, viz., eviction without going to the merits of the case should not be imposed on him. According to counsel for the petitioner, immediately on the disposal of I.A.No. 6426 of 1998, eviction was ordered under S.12(3) of the Act, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner/ tenant to show cause why eviction under the said provision should not be imposed on him and that there was also justification for the dismissal of A. No.6426 of 1998 filed by the tenant for enlargement of the time prescribed for deposit of arrears of rent. It is further submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the Rent Controller to give yet another opportunity to the tenant to show cause why the penal consequences contemplated under S.12(3) of the Act should not be imposed on him. In support of the above contention learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant cited the decision of this Court reported in Sidartha v. Hassankutty Haji (1994 (2) KLT 419). Portion of the judgment on which specific reliance was placed by counsel for the petitioner reads as follows: