P.T. Babu vs K.V. Padmanabhan

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision u/s 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery passing a summary order of eviction against the revision petitioner tenant on the reason that he did not pay the arrears of rent admitted as well as the rent which fell due subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings in spite of time granted and without showing any cause against the passage of such order. Understandably, on the basis of the impugned order, the RCA filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority. We are informed that the order which was impugned in the RCA itself was a summary order of eviction u/s 12(3) passed by the Rent Control Court. It is transparently clear that the petitioner had not paid the arrears of rent admitted or the rent which fell due subsequent to the proceedings and had not shown any valid cause against passage of the summary order of eviction either before the Rent Control Court or before the Appellate Authority. This means that there is absolutely no illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 warranting interference in revision with the impugned order and the consequential judgment passed by the Appellate Authority.

Mr. P.U. Shailajan, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would seek indulgence. He submitted that the revision petitioner may be given reasonable time for paying the entire arrears of rent due as on date with statutory interest and a conditional order be passed vacating the impugned order. The above request is opposed by Mr. K.N. Abhilash, learned Counsel for the respondent. According to Mr. Abhilash, the petitioner is a chronic defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. Two ferocious dogs are reared by the petitioner in the building as a result of which the landlord or his agent are not even able to go to the petition schedule building for demanding the rent. The current rate of Rs. 4000/- per mensem is far below the rent which the building will fetch if the same is let out today. He however, told us that the substantial eviction ground which was invoked in the RCP filed against the revision petitioner is one under Sub-section (3) of Section 11. According to him, the respondent/landlord has a very strong case under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 also.

As already indicated, we don''t find any infirmity about the impugned order. But we feel that in this case the merits of the substantive eviction ground u/s 11(3) is yet to be considered by the statutory authorities some indulgence can be shown to the revision petitioner and relief can be given to him imposing proper conditions. According to the landlord''s Counsel, rent is in arrears since January 2006 and no amount has been paid thereafter. The revision petitioner''s Counsel disputed the above submission. Accepting the landlord''s submission, the arrears of rent due as on date inclusive of the rent for the month of May 2010 will come to Rs. 2,08,000/-. Statutory interest and cost would come atleast to Rs. 12,000/-. Thus a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- less the amount if any paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority with notice to the court, is found to be due from the revision petitioner to the respondent. Together with that amount the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the respondent either directly or through the respondent''s Counsel in this Court. He should also pay a further amount of Rs. 5000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee. All these payments should be made within one month from today. So also, he should pay monthly rent with effect from 1-7-2010 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per mensem. Under the above circumstances, we dispose of the RCR issuing the following orders:

The impugned order as well as the judgment passed by the Appellate Authority, Thalassery in RCA. No. 53 of 2008 and also the order of the Rent Control Court which was impugned in RCA. No. 53 of 2008 will stand set aside and RCP No. 71 of 2007 will go back to the Rent Control Court, Thalassery subject to the following conditions:

1) The revision petitioner pays to the respondent either directly or through the respondent''s Counsel in this Court or before the Rent Control Court a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- less the amount if any paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent during the pendency of the RCP with notice to the Rent Control Court within one month from today.

2) The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent by way of cost either directly or through the respondent''s Counsel in this Court within the same time limit.

3) The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks from today.

4) Receipts against payment of all the above amounts shall be produced before the Rent Control Court. Once the Rent Control Court notices payment of amounts on time this order will become operative and once it is seen that the order has become operative, the Rent Control Court will proceed with the RCP, try the same and dispose of the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

5) The revision petitioner shall file affidavit before the Rent Control Court undertaking to pay rent to the respondent with effect from 1-7-2010 at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per mensem.

We make it clear that if the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the present fixation of rent by this Court it is open to either of the parties to move the Rent Control Court with proper application u/s 5 for regular fixation of fair rent. If the conditions stipulated above are not complied with the impugned order will stand confirmed.