K.P. Sajeer vs Nisar K.C

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J

As these revision petitions impugn the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common order.

The tenants of a two storied building known as “Kanak complex” within the limits of Thalassery Municipality, are the petitioners in these revision petitions. They are aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Court that dismissed their appeals against the order of the Rent Control Court that directed their eviction from the tenanted premises in Rent Control Petitions preferred by the respondent landlords under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”].

In the Revision Petitions before us, the petitioners tenants impugn the judgment of the Appellate Court only to the extent it upholds the eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act. In other words, the petitioners are not impugning the finding of the court below under Section 11(2) of the Act. The finding of the court below under Section 11(3) is assailed inter alia on the contention that the need of the 1st petitioner in the Rent Control Petitions was never established through his examination before the Rent Control Court. It is further contented that the revision petitioners had clearly established that the income from the business conducted in the tenanted premises was their sole source of livelihood, and further, there was no suitable building available in the locality for conducting a lodging house of the kind that they were conducting in the tenanted premises. The petitioners therefore argued that they had discharged the burden required of them under the 2nd proviso to Section 11(3), and despite that the court below ordered their eviction from the tenanted premises by finding in favour of the landlords.

We have heard Sri.R.Surendran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Ashwin Sathyanath, the learned counsel for the respondents.

At the very outset, we might observe that during the course of the arguments, we noticed that the Rent Control Court, while allowing the Rent Control Petitions in part, had directed the revision petitioners to surrender vacant possession of the petition scheduled building within one month, failing which the landlords were given liberty to execute the order of the Rent Control Court. The revision petitioners/tenants were also given liberty to deposit the entire arrears of rent together with interest and costs within one month from the date of the order of the Rent Control Court.

It is not in dispute before us that the arrears of rent with interest and costs as directed was not paid by the revision petitioners within the time granted by the Rent Control Court. The said amount was also not paid before the Appellate Authority. Under the said circumstances, the Rent Control Appellate Court ought not to have entertained the appeals preferred by the petitioners herein on merits since there was a statutory mandate under Section 12(1) that prevented the petitioners herein from contesting the case by maintaining an appeal under Section 18 of the Act. We are also informed by the learned counsel for the landlords that a suit has since been instituted by the landlords for realising the arrears of rent from the revision petitioners herein. The said proceedings by the landlords was necessitated solely on account of the non-compliance by the petitioners herein with the direction of the Rent Control Court to pay the arrears of rent determined as payable by the said court. If the petitioners have chosen not to comply with the said direction, with a view to defeat the rightful claim of the landlords and thereby forcing the landlords to approach the civil court with a suit for recovery of the amounts, in which proceedings they would indubitably be faced with the objection of limitation for a good part of the rent arrears, then it would be both illegal and inequitable to permit the petitioners to contest and pursue these proceedings against the order of the Rent Control Court in view of the specific bar under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Act. No doubt,the Rent Control Appellate Court did not notice the above aspect and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits, but that cannot be a reason for this court to permit the petitioners to reap the benefits of proceedings that they were never entitled to invoke under the statute. We also find that even on merits, the Appellate Court ultimately found against the petitioners herein and dismissed the appeals, thereby confirming the findings of the Rent Control Court. We therefore choose not to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Court impugned before us.

Thus, for the reasons stated in this order as also the reasons stated by the Appellate Court in the judgment impugned in these revision petitions, these Revision petitions are dismissed as devoid of merit.