Mano E vs Lalithabai.A

Mohammed Nias.C.P.J.

The tenant respondent in RCP No.35 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court is aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge VI), Thiruvananthapuram, dated 28.2.2023 that allowed the appeal filed by the landlord against an order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

The respondents herein preferred RCP No.35 of 2018 under Section 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act. IA No.6 of 2022 was filed in the said proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, contending that the tenant had executed a rent agreement dated 20.06.2003 fixing a monthly rent of Rs.16,500/- and that he committed default in payment of rent from July 2016 onwards. The tenant objected to the said application contending that the rate of rent was only Rs.7,000/- and that he had paid Rs.14,00,000/- as advance security amount, which was still lying with the landlord. The Rent Control Court found that the deposit contemplated under Section 12 is only the rent admitted by the tenant and not after adjudication, and accordingly found that the tenant can only be directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- from the date of the original petition within one month and also to continue to pay the subsequent rent when it falls due. The landlord challenged the said order by filing RCA No.15 of 2022, contending that the direction of the Rent Control Court to the tenant to pay only Rs.7,000/- was wrong as the tenant had admitted the rent of Rs.16,500/- per month.

The appellate court, after hearing both sides, found that going by the reply notice sent on 24.8.2016 by the tenant as well as the reply notice dated 23.9.2017, the arrears of rent for seven months from July 2016 was calculated as Rs.16,500/- per month and the calculations made tallies with the amounts now claimed by the landlord. In that view of the matter, the appellate court found that the admitted rent has to be taken as Rs.16,500/-. The appellate court also found, going by the principles in Gopala Panicker Baiju and Another v. Mallika [2018 (5) KHC 95], admissions/materials of the tenant can be looked into, and a bare denial by the tenant will not absolve him from the liability to deposit the admitted arrears. The appellate court found that the tenant having issued a letter dated 24.8.2017 complying with the notice dated 18.7.2016 of the landlord and paying the rent as claimed, the same had to be treated as the admitted rate of rent and the conclusion of the trial court that the amount can only be Rs.7,000/- cannot be sustained. Thus, the rent control appeal was allowed, and the tenant was directed to pay the arrears of rent at Rs.16,500/- from July 2016 within two weeks and continue to pay the rent, which became subsequently due till the culmination of the proceedings. The tenant challenges this order in this revision.

Before us, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argues that the appellate authority erred in fixing the monthly rent as Rs.16,500/- as he had only admitted an amount of Rs.7000/- as rent and that the earlier payment at the rate of Rs.16,500/- cannot be treated as an admission as it was paid subject to verification of the accounts. The learned counsel also argues that he has spent an amount of Rs.21.49 lakh on the building, and the same is due to him from the landlord.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned orders, we find that the appellate authority has correctly held that the admitted rate of rent was Rs.16500/- on the basis of the payment made by the tenant and his reply notice referred above. There is nothing wrong in the appellate authority accepting the said figure going by the principles laid down in Gopala Panicker Baiju and Another (supra) referred above. Section 12 imposes a liability on the tenant to pay the admitted arrears and the arrears that subsequently fall due as a condition to contest the case or to prefer an appeal, as the case may be. The appellate authority had fixed the rate of rent as Rs.16,500/- on the basis of the materials available before it, and we find no error committed by the appellate authority in taking recourse to the said procedure. A bare denial of the liability to pay rent by the tenant will not absolve him of the liability to pay the rent if, from the materials, the rate of rent can be found out. True, a detailed adjudication on the question of rent payable may not be possible in a proceeding under Section 12, but the same never bars the authorities from finding out the admitted rent from materials that the tenant cannot lawfully deny or dispute. Given the above position of law, we do not find any illegality committed by the appellate authority in holding that the admitted rent rate is Rs.16,500/- for the reasons indicated above.

We find no merit in the revision, the same is accordingly dismissed.