P M Salim vs Greenix Ventures Pvt Ltd on 1 September, 2022

[Cites 40, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

P M Salim vs Greenix Ventures Pvt Ltd on 1 September, 2022

These Rent Control Revisions, i.e., R.C.Rev.No.147 of 2022 and R.C.Rev.No.151 of 2022, filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, arise out of the judgment dated 04.07.2022 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-VI), Ernakulam in R.C.A.No.5 of 2022, filed against the order dated 22.11.2021 of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Kochi in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019. Since common issues are raised, these Rent Control Revisions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners in R.C.Rev.No.147 of 2022 are the petitioners-landlords in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kochi, which was one filed against the petitioners in R.C.Rev.No.151 of 2022, who are the tenants, seeking an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. The tenants entered appearance and filed an objection in the Rent Control Petition. The landlords filed I.A.No.4 of 2020, an application under Section 12 of the Act, seeking an order directing the tenants to R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 6 deposit admitted arrears of rent. In that interlocutory application, the tenants filed a counter, contending that the monthly rent of the tenanted premises is only Rs.1,60,000/- and not Rs.1,83,000/- as claimed by the landlords. Admittedly, the tenants have not paid any amount towards monthly rent from January, 2020 onwards, even at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/-. After considering the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court passed an order dated 30.01.2021 in I.A.No.4 of 2020, under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, whereby the tenants were directed to pay admitted arrears of rent amounting to Rs.20,80,000/- for the period from 01.01.2020 till 30.01.2021, at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per month, on or before 30.03.2021. The tenants have not chosen to pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent. No petition was filed for enlargement of time for paying admitted arrears of rent. Therefore, the Rent Control Court passed an order dated 31.03.2021, under Section 12(3) of the Act, whereby the tenants were directed to vacate the petition schedule building and put the landlords in possession of that building.

3. The tenants filed I.A.No.6 of 2021 seeking an order to review the order dated 30.01.2021 in I.A.No.4 of 2020. That R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 7 application was allowed on 27.08.2021 and the tenants were granted two weeks' time to show cause as to why an order under Section 12(3) of the Act shall not be passed against them. On 13.10.2021 the matter was adjourned to 16.10.2021 and thereafter to 28.10.2021. On 28.10.2021 the matter was adjourned to 22.11.2021. The tenants did not pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent. They failed to show sufficient cause for non- payment of admitted arrears of rent. Therefore, the Rent Control Court passed the order dated 22.11.2021 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019, under Section 12(3) of the Act, whereby the tenants were directed to vacate the petition schedule building and put the landlords in possession of that building.

4. The order dated 22.11.2021 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019 was under challenge in R.C.A.No.5 of 2022 filed by the tenants before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-VI), Ernakulam. That appeal ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 04.07.2022. In the said judgment, the Appellate Authority noticed that the tenants have no case that they have paid any amount towards rent to the landlords after the filing of the Rent Control Petition, which is one filed on 01.10.2019. R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 8 The tenants have also not produced any receipts or documents to prove the payment of rent during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition. Therefore, it is evident that the tenants have not paid to the landlords the rent admitted by them in their counter to I.A.No.4 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019. From the available evidence, the Appellate Authority found that during the period from 01.01.2020 till 30.01.2021 there is admitted arrears of rent of Rs.20,80,000/- (Rs.1,60,000 x 13). In the above circumstances, the Appellate Authority held that the Rent Control Court was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order under Section 12(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Appellate Authority found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Rent Control Court and accordingly dismissed R.C.A.No.5 of 2022. However, considering the quantum of arrears of rent, the tenants were granted a period of three months from the date of the judgment to comply with the impugned order. During the said period the tenants shall pay the admitted arrears of rent, either in lump or in installments, failing which the landlords would be entitled to proceed against the tenants as per law.

5. On 11.08.2022, the landlords filed R.C.Rev.No.147 of R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 9 2022 before this Court, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act, challenging the judgment dated 04.07.2022 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.5 of 2022, to the extent the tenants were granted time for making payment of admitted arrears of rent. On 23.08.2022, when R.C.Rev.No.147 of 2022 came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents-tenants by special messenger, returnable by 29.08.2022.

6. On 26.08.2022, the tenants filed R.C.Rev.No.151 of 2022 challenging the order dated 22.11.2021 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019, i.e., the order under Section 12(3) of the Act, and the judgment dated 04.07.2022 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.5 of 2022. On 30.08.2022, when R.C.Rev.No.151 of 2022 came up for consideration the said revision was ordered to be listed along with R.C.Rev.No.147 of 2022.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the landlords [the petitioners in R.C.Rev.No.147 of 2022, who are the respondents in R.C.Rev.No.151 of 2022] and also the learned counsel for the tenants [the petitioners in R.C.Rev.No.151 of 2022, who are the respondents in R.C.Rev.No.147 of 2022].

R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 10

8. The learned counsel for the tenants would contend that the Rent Control Court committed a grave mistake in issuing the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019, under Section 12(3) of the Act, when the tenants have disputed the claim made by the landlords towards arrears of rent. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, without properly appreciating the contentions raised by the tenants, dismissed R.C.A.No.5 of 2022 by the judgment dated 04.07.2022. The learned counsel would contend that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority committed a grave error in relying on the admission made by the tenants that the monthly rent payable was Rs.1,60,000/-. Considering the quantum of arrears of rent, the Appellate Authority granted the tenants three months' time to comply with the direction contained in the order of the Rent Control Court to pay admitted arrears of rent, either in lump or in installments, which warrants no interference by this Court. The learned counsel would point out that the time limit granted by the Appellate Authority is not yet over.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlords would point out that the tenants filed a counter in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019, contending that the monthly rent of the R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 11 tenanted premises is only Rs.1,60,000/- and not Rs.1,83,000/- as claimed by the landlords. Admittedly, the tenants have not paid any amount towards monthly rent from January, 2020 onwards, even at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/-. The tenants have no case that they have paid any amount towards rent payable to the landlords after the filing of the Rent Control Petition, which is one filed on 01.10.2019. They have also not produced any receipts or documents, as required under Section 9(2) of the Act, to prove payment of any rent during the pendency of R.C.P.No.17 of 2019. The tenants failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of the admitted arrears of rent. Therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Appellate Authority, however, went wrong in granting the tenants three months' time to comply with the direction contained in the order of the Rent Control Court to pay admitted arrears of rent, either in lump or in installments. The judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent the tenants were granted time for making payment of admitted arrears of rent warrants interference by this Court.

10. Section 12 of the Act deals with payment or deposit of R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 12 rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. As per Section 12(1), no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that Section or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 against any order made by the Rent Control Court on the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be. As per Section 12(2), the deposit under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time as the court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed for the service of notice referred to in sub-section (4). As per the proviso to Section 12(2), the time fixed by the court for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the order and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 13 accrues due shall not be less than two weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due. As per Section 12(3) of the Act, if any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. As per Section 12(4), when any deposit is made under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord in the prescribed manner, and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority in that behalf.

11. Section 12(1) of the Act enjoins a tenant, against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, to pay to the landlord, or deposit with the Rent Control Court, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building, up to the date of payment or deposit, and continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 14 respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, in order to contest that application for eviction before the Rent Control Court. Similarly, Section 12(1) of the Act enjoins a tenant, in order to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act against any order made by the Rent Control Court on an application made by a landlord under Section 11, to pay the landlord, or deposits with the Appellate Authority, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority.

12. The liability of a tenant under Section 12(1) of the Act, against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 11, or who prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, against any order made by the Rent Control Court on an application made by a landlord under Section 11, is limited to all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building, up to the date of payment or deposit, and he shall continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 15 respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be.

13. The object of the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Act is to deny the defaulting tenant the right to contest the application for eviction before the Rent Control Court, or to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act against any order made by the Rent Control Court on an application made by a landlord under Section 11, unless he pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by him to be due in respect of the building, up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be.

14. In J. Ramkumar v. Ashok Jacob [2022 (1) KHC 495 :

ILR 2021 (4) Kerala 876] this Court held that, Section 12(2) of the Act enjoins a tenant to deposit the admitted rent under sub-

section (1), within such time as the court may fix and in such manner as may be prescribed. The time fixed by the court for the R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 16 deposit of the arrears of rent and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than that specified in the proviso to Section 12(2). As per the statutory mandate of Section 12(1), on an application filed by the landlord under Section 12, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, has to order payment or deposit of arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the petition schedule building, up to the date of payment or deposit and the tenant shall also be directed to continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, regardless of the relief sought for in that application. As per Section 12(3) of the Act, if any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.

15. In Pochappan Narayanan v. Gopalan [1990 (2) KLT 1] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that Section 12(3) of the R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 17 Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act deals with consequences flowing as a result of the failure on the part of the tenant to pay or deposit admitted rent. When the tenant fails to pay or deposit the admitted rent, as provided in Section 12(1) and (2), the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, will be required to ask the tenant to show cause why all further proceedings should not be stopped and an order be made directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. When such an opportunity is afforded to the tenant, the tenant is entitled to show, if there is sufficient cause, for his failure to pay the amount or deposit the rent as provided in Section 12(1) and (2). If the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not making the payment or deposit of the rent within time, it will not make any order stopping further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. If, however, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority is not satisfied about the cause shown, an order has to be made stopping all further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession.

R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 18

16. In Pochappan Narayanan the Division Bench held that, before the consequences contemplated by Section 12(3) of the Act can ensue, the conditions specified in Section 12(1) and (2) have to be satisfied. It is therefore clear that, before any steps can be taken under Section 12(3) for making an order against the tenant who has committed default in paying or making the deposit as contemplated by Section 12(1), the procedure prescribed by Section 12(2) has to be satisfied. A tenant who does not fulfill the obligations imposed on him by Section 12(1) cannot be visited with the penal consequences contemplated by Section 12(3), unless all the conditions specified by Section 12(2) are satisfactorily fulfilled. Even after the court acts in accordance with Section 12(2) and the tenant still commits default, the tenant has to be given one more opportunity of showing cause as to why penal consequences contemplated by Section 12(3) should not be imposed on him. It is only when the court is not satisfied with the cause shown that it can pass an order stopping all further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.

17. In Narayanan v. Vinod [2004 (3) KLT 955] the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 12(3) R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 19 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was assailed before the Division Bench, on the ground that the petitioner-tenant was not granted time as stipulated in Section 12(2) to deposit the arrears of rent and that, he had not been issued with any notice under Section 12(3) to show sufficient cause for not depositing the rent and, therefore, the order directing eviction of the tenant is contrary to the provisions of Section 12. The Division Bench noticed that, the provisions of Section 12 of the Act are mandatory and no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord is entitled to contest the same or to prefer an appeal under Section 18, against any order passed by the Rent Control Court, unless he had paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Rent Control Court or with the Appellate Authority, all arrears of rent admitted by him to be due in respect of the demised premises up to the date of payment and continues to pay or deposit the rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority. Section 12(3) of the Act then mandates that if any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority shall R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 20 'unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary' stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the demised premises. In other words, if the admitted rent due is not deposited during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, all further proceedings have to stop and the authority concerned is required to make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in vacant possession of the premises unless the tenant shows sufficient cause for not depositing that rent.

18. In Narayanan [2004 (3) KLT 955], on the question as to whether the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, where admitted rent has not been paid, is required to issue a separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for the default in payment of admitted rent or is it for the tenant himself to file an application and bring to the notice of the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority the reasons which prevented him from depositing the rent, the Division Bench held that, if the admitted arrears of rent are not deposited within the time fixed by the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority the tenant makes a default resulting in the penal consequences of R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 21 his immediate eviction by stopping all further proceedings. This, however, will not happen if the tenant is able to show sufficient cause for making the default in not depositing the admitted rent. From the language of Section 12(3) of the Act and the legislative intent, it is not for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority to issue any separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent. When the time fixed for the deposit of arrears of rent runs out and the tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not expected to pass an order of ejectment of the tenant forthwith.

19. In Narayanan [2004 (3) KLT 955] the Division Bench held that the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, while fixing the time within which the arrears of rent shall be deposited by the tenant should normally adjourn the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date fixed for depositing the rent, thereby allowing reasonable time to the tenant to show sufficient cause for not depositing the rent, if he has committed default in payment. It will then be for the tenant to move an application before the concerned authority to show sufficient cause for the non-payment of rent. In R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 22 other words, the interval between the date up to which the rent is to be deposited and the date on which the order under Section 12(3) is passed should be reasonable to enable the tenant to show sufficient cause for committing the default, if he so chooses. If the tenant moves such an application and points out the reasons which prevented him from depositing the arrears of admitted rent, the concerned authority will examine the issue on merits to find out whether sufficient cause has been shown or not. If sufficient cause has been shown, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority will not order immediate ejectment of the tenant. If no application is filed by the tenant or if the reasons shown by the tenant are insufficient, the penal consequences as contemplated in Section 12(3) of the Act shall follow. Section 12(3) of the Act is a mandate to the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority to order immediate ejectment of the tenant, if the tenant does not deposit the admitted arrears of rent, the only exception being, if he is able to show sufficient cause for not doing so. In that view of the matter, the Division Bench concluded that, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, where admitted rent has not been deposited by the tenant, is not required to issue any R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 23 separate notice to the tenant, to enable him to show sufficient cause for committing the default.

20. In Shaji M. v. SNDP Sakhayogam No. 610, Alappuzha [2020 (2) KHC 574] a Full Bench of this Court held that, in view of the principle evolved in Narayanan [2004 (3) KLT 955], from the language of Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and from the legislative intent, it is not for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority to issue any separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent. Instead, when the time fixed for deposit of the arrears of rent runs out and the tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not expected to pass an order ordering ejectment of the tenant forthwith. The Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should normally adjourn the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date fixed for deposit, thereby allowing reasonable time to the tenant to show sufficient cause for not depositing the rent, if he has committed default in payment of the arrears of rent. The interpretation made and the directions issued in Narayanan [2004 R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 24 (3) KLT 955] is more apt and appropriate to be held, as a view which can be legally sustained. The opportunity to be afforded to the tenant to show sufficient cause with respect to the failure to pay or deposit rent, as directed in Section 12(1) and (2), within the date stipulated, is not an empty formality. The principles of natural justice would mandate that the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should afford the tenant with such an opportunity.

21. In Shaji M. [2020 (2) KHC 574], on the question as to whether the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority is required to issue any specific notice to the tenant to show cause, the Full Bench noticed that, the consequences provided under Section 12(3) of the Act follows when there occurred a default in complying with the direction for deposit or payment of the admitted arrears. Therefore, on the date stipulated for effecting such payment, by virtue of the order passed under Section 12(1) and (2), the tenant becomes fully aware that, unless sufficient cause has not been shown for the default committed, the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and direction to put the landlord in possession of the building, would follow automatically. Therefore, R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 25 there is no necessity to alert the tenant by issuing any specific notice in this regard, calling upon him to show sufficient cause. On the other hand, providing of a further opportunity after the last date stipulated for effecting the payment or the deposit, is mandatory. If no sufficient cause is shown within such extended date to which the rent control petition is posted, it is absolutely within the authority and competence; and is the natural consequence that the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should stop the proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Such a procedure, if followed, would be sufficient compliance for providing reasonable opportunity satisfying the statutory requirement contained in Section 12(3). Hence the Full Bench concluded that the decision in Narayanan [2004 (3) KLT 955], even though passed without noticing the decision in Pochappan Narayanan [1990 (2) KLT 1] had laid the correct law. The Full Bench noticed that its view in this regard has got support from the decision of the Apex Court in Sankaran Pillai v. V.P. Venuguduswami [(1999) 6 SCC 396], the decisions of this Court in C.V. Xavier v. Francis Leonard Pappali R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 26 [1975 KLT 542] and Narayanan v. Muraleedhara Maran [1964 KLT 509].

22. In Sankaran Pillai v. V.P. Venuguduswami [(1999) 6 SCC 396] the Apex Court held that, it is for the tenant to show sufficient cause and not for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, to issue any show cause notice calling upon the tenant to show cause why an order of eviction shall not be passed.

23. In C.V. Xavier v. Francis Leonard Pappali [1975 KLT 542] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the reasonable opportunity contemplated under Section 12(3) of the Act must be a reasonable and real opportunity and is not an empty formality and that, if the tenant is not given such opportunity to show sufficient cause, an order passed under Section 12(3) would be unsustainable.

24. In Narayanan v. Muraleedhara Maran [1964 KLT 509] a Division Bench of this Court held that, when the court had passed an order directing a party before it to do a particular thing, in default of which certain consequence is to follow, if the party is to be relieved of the consequences of any non-compliance of that R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 27 order, he has to make a specific motion thereof showing sufficient cause for his non-compliance of the order and making appropriate prayer therein. Otherwise the order would work itself out and the default to comply with it will bring the appointed consequences on the tenant.

25. As per sub-section (4) of Section 12, when any deposit is made under sub-section (1), the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord in the prescribed manner, and the amount deposited may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority in that behalf.

26. In J. Ramkumar [2022 (1) KHC 495], this Court held that Section 12 of the Act imposes certain obligations on the tenant to pay or deposit admitted rent, during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction under Section 11, before the Rent Control Court, and also the proceedings in an appeal filed under Section 18, before the Appellate Authority, against such an order of eviction. Section 12(3) of the Act also provides for the consequences, which R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 28 were to follow, for committing default in fulfilling those obligations. Section 12(3) of the Act deals with the consequences flowing as a result of the failure on the part of the tenant to pay or deposit admitted rent. Before the consequences under Section 12(3) can ensue, the conditions specified in Section 12(1) and (2) have to be satisfied. Section 12(3) mandates that if any tenant fails to pay or deposit the admitted rent as provided under Section 12(1) and (2), the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Therefore, if the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied about the cause shown by the tenant, it will not make any order under Section 12(3) of the Act, stopping further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.

27. It is clear from the plain language and also the legislative intent of Section 12 of the Act that, it is not for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, to pass an order under Section 12(3), stopping further proceedings and R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 29 directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, once the time limit fixed for payment or deposit of admitted rent runs out, and the tenant defaulted payment or deposit of rent in terms of the order passed under Section 12(1) and (2). Though it is not for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, to issue any separate notice to the tenant to enable him to show sufficient cause for not paying or depositing the admitted arrears of rent, as held by the Division Bench in Narayanan [2004 (3) KLT 955] and approved by the Full Bench in Shaji M. [2020 (2) KHC 574], the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority is not expected to pass an order forthwith, stopping further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, under Section 12(3).

28. Before passing an order under Section 12(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should normally adjourn the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date fixed for payment or deposit of admitted rent, thereby allowing reasonable time to the tenant to show sufficient cause for not paying or depositing the admitted rent, if he has committed default in payment of the same, within the time limit R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 30 stipulated in the order passed under Section 12(1) and (2). Such an opportunity to be afforded to the tenant to show sufficient cause is not an empty formality. The principles of natural justice would mandate that the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority should afford such an opportunity to the tenant before passing an order under Section 12(3).

29. In J. Ramkumar [2022 (1) KHC 495], this Court held that, the consequences provided under Section 12(3) of the Act follow when there occurred a default by the tenant in complying with the direction in an order passed under Section 12(1) and (2), for deposit or payment of the admitted arrears of rent. On the date stipulated for effecting such payment, by virtue of that order, the tenant becomes fully aware that, unless sufficient cause has not been shown for the default committed, the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and direction to put the landlord in possession of the building, under Section 12(3) would follow automatically. There is no necessity to alert the tenant by issuing any specific notice in this regard, calling upon him to show sufficient cause. On the other hand, providing of a further opportunity after the last date stipulated for effecting payment or deposit of admitted R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 31 rent, is mandatory. If no sufficient cause is shown within such extended date to which the rent control petition is posted, it is absolutely within the authority and competence, and is the natural consequence that, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should stop the proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. As held by the Full Bench in Shaji M. [2020 (2) KHC 574], such a procedure, if followed, would be sufficient compliance for providing reasonable opportunity satisfying the statutory requirement contained in Section 12(3) of the Act.

30. In Venugopalan v. Raphael [1974 KLT 640] the Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case in which the landlord filed Rent Control Petition under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act claiming eviction of the petition schedule building on the ground of arrears of rent. The Rent Control Court passed an order directing the tenant to pay admitted arrears of rent on or before the 20.09.1971. In the said order it was made clear that, on default of deposit within the specified period, an order for possession under Section 12(3) of the Act, will be passed. The order under Section 12(1) and (2) was not complied with, despite the fact that time for R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 32 payment was extended. Therefore, the Rent Control Court passed an order for possession under Section 12(3) of the Act, which was dated 25.10.1971. Within thirty days of the said order, the tenant filed I.A. No. 4143 of 1971 to receive what was claimed to be the admitted arrears; and I.A. No. 4142 of 1971 to set aside the order for possession passed under Section 12(3) of the Act on 25.10.1971. The Rent Control Court dismissed I.A. No. 4142 of 1971 holding that an order under Section 12(3) cannot be set aside or vacated on the mere ground that the admitted arrears of rent had been deposited subsequent to the order. It declined to receive the arrears of rent tendered along with the I.A. No. 4143 of 1971, and accordingly dismissed the same. The appeals preferred by the tenant under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act against those orders were dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. On further revision, the revisional court, namely the District Court, Trichur, allowed the revision and set aside the orders of the Rent Control Court and of the Appellate Authority and remanded I.A. Nos. 4142 of 1971 and 4143 of 1971 back to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal directing that the time for making deposit of the arrears of R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 33 rent, will be extended by the Rent Control Court. Feeling aggrieved landlord preferred revision petition before this Court.

31. In Venugopalan [1974 KLT 640] the Division Bench noticed that, under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act a tenant, against whom a decree for eviction has been passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground that rent had been kept in arrears, is allowed relief against the forfeiture of tenancy incurred by non-payment of rent, by depositing the arrears of rent decreed, within a certain period. In Kurien v. Saramma Chacko [1964 KLT 1] it was held that the power under Section 11(2)(c) can be exercised by the Appellate Authority and also by the Revisional Authority. Section 12 of the Act provides for a totally different contingency. The deposit of the admitted arrears enjoined by Section 12, is a condition precedent to the tenant entering on his defence and contesting the application for eviction, or an appeal filed therefrom. The scope and purpose of the deposit of arrears of rent enjoined by Section 12 is fundamentally different from the scope and the purpose of the deposit envisaged by Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. In K.P. Mohammed v. Madhavi Amma [1963 KLT 688] the Division Bench held that, Section 11 and Section 12 of the Act are not R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 34 dependent on each other. They provide for different contingencies though the consequence of the non-compliance of the mandates of either Section is eviction. An order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) of the Act is not amenable to correction under Section 11(2)(c), which relates to orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) only. In T.B. Mohanan v. Kanakaraja Pillai [1970 KLT 1024] a learned Judge of this Court held that an order passed under Section 12 of the Act, cannot be reopened or vacated by tendering the rent subsequent to the passing of the said order. In Venugopalan, the Division Bench held that, even assuming that for purpose of execution an order under Section 12(3) of the Act can be equated with and treated as the same, as one under Section 11 of the Act, the consequence enjoined by an order under Section 12(3) for failure to deposit the admitted arrears in time cannot be vacated or obliterated by payment at any subsequent stages or periods.

32. In Venugopalan [1974 KLT 640] it was argued before the Division Bench that Section 12(3) of the Act is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench observed that, the scope and the purpose of Section 11(2)(c) R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 35 and Section 12 are fundamentally different. The one is meant to relieve against forfeiture, and the other, as a condition precedent to be performed by the tenant before entering on his defence. The law itself does not encourage or put a premium on dishonesty, although those inclined to be dishonest may make use of its provisions to suit their purpose. Therefore, the Division Bench repelled the contention of the tenant that Section 12(3) of the Act is discriminatory.

33. In Davy v. Indu [1999 (3) KLT 434] a Division Bench of this Court reiterated that Section 11 and Section 12 of the Act operate in different fields and circumstances. The compliance of these mandatory provisions will lead to eviction of the tenant. But an order of eviction once passed under Section 12(3) cannot be undone by resorting to Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. Section 11(2)(c) of the Act relates to orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2) only. Therefore, Section 11 and 12 of the Act are not dependent on each other.

34. In Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal [(2003) 2 SCC 577] the question as to the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the matter of default in deposit of rent as R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 36 also interpretation of the word 'shall' occurring in Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, came up for consideration before a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex. Section 13(1)(a) of the Act enables a landlord to sue for a decree of eviction in the event a tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months. In terms of Section 13(3), which was substituted by Section 8(i) of Rajasthan Act 14 of 1976, it is obligatory on the court to provisionally determine the amount of rent wherefor no application is required to be filed. As per Section 13(4) of the Act, the tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under Section 13(3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the court. The tenant shall also continue to deposit in court or pay to the landlord, month by month, the monthly rent subsequent to the period up to which determination has been made, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month or within such further time not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under Section 13(3). Under Section 13(5), if a tenant fails to R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 37 deposit or pay any amount referred to in Section 13 (4), on the date or within the time specified therein, the court shall order the defence against eviction to be struck out and shall proceed with the hearing of the suit.

35. In Nasiruddin [(2003) 2 SCC 577] the Apex Court held that, a bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions would show that in terms of Section 13(4), a tenant is required to deposit the amount of rent determined by the court under Section 13(3) within fifteen days of the date of determination or within such further time not exceeding three months, as may be extended by the court. By reason of the 1976 Amendment, the following was specifically inserted:

"within such further time, not exceeding three months as may be extended by the court" or the words "or within such further time, not exceeding fifteen days, as may be extended by the court, at the monthly rate at which the rent was determined by the court under sub-section (3)"

The word "shall", which is ordinarily imperative in nature, has been used in Section 13(4). The power of the court has also been limited to the extent that it can extend time for such deposit not exceeding three months and so far as the deposit of monthly rent is concerned, R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 38 by fifteen days. The court's power, therefore, is restricted. In case the tenant deposits the provisional rent as determined by the court within the stipulated period the tenant is relieved by the eviction decree.

36. In Nasiruddin [(2003) 2 SCC 577] the Apex Court noticed that, Section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 dealt with in the decision in Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas [(1980) 2 SCC 151] the court has been conferred power to extend the time for deposit of rent to any such further time, as it may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf. The power of the court under the M.P. Act Act is not restricted. However, discretion available to the court under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act is limited. Furthermore, in Section 13(6) of the M.P. Act, the word "may" has been used which is directory; in contradistinction with the word "shall" employed in the Rajasthan Act. The M.P. Act provides for the power of the court to extend the time in the event sufficient cause therefor is shown which is absent in the Rajasthan Act. Furthermore, in terms thereof once the rent has been determined, the same has to be deposited within the prescribed period wherefor there exists no R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 39 provision for filing an application. Wherever the special Act provides for extension of time or condonation of default, the court possesses the power therefor, but where the statute does not provide either for extension of time or to condone the default in depositing the rent within the stipulated period, the court does not have the power to do so. In that view of the matter it must be held that in absence of such provisions in the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, the court did not have the power to either extend the period to deposit the rent or to condone the default in depositing the rent.

37. In Nasiruddin [(2003) 2 SCC 577] the Apex Court observed that, it is true that the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act does not expressly exclude the application of the Limitation Act, 1963. But Section 5 of the Limitation Act in its terms is not applicable to wherever there is a default in depositing the rent by the tenant. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed having regard to Section 3 thereof. For filing an application after the expiry of the period prescribed under the Limitation Act or any other special statute, a cause of action must arise. Compliance with an order passed by a court of R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 40 law in terms of a statutory provision does not give rise to a cause of action. On failure to comply with an order passed by a court of law, instant consequences are provided for under the statute. The court can condone the default only when the statute confers such a power on the court and not otherwise. In that view of the matter the Apex Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application in the case on hand.

38. In J. Ramkumar [2022 (1) KHC 495], this Court concluded that the consequences provided under Section 12(3) of the Act follow when there occurred a default by the tenant in complying with the direction in an order passed under Section 12(1) and (2), for deposit or payment of the admitted arrears of rent. On the date stipulated for effecting such payment, by virtue of that order, the tenant becomes fully aware that, unless sufficient cause has not been shown for the default committed, the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and direction to put the landlord in possession of the building, under Section 12(3) would follow automatically. As held by a Division Bench in Venugopalan [1974 KLT 640] and reiterated in Davy [1999 (3) KLT 434] even assuming that for purpose of execution an order under Section 12(3) R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 41 of the Act can be equated with and treated as the same, as one under Section 11 of the Act, the consequence enjoined by an order under Section 12(3) for failure to deposit the admitted arrears in time can not be vacated or obliterated by payment at any subsequent stages or periods. The law laid down by a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Nasiruddin [(2003) 2 SCC 577] is to the effect that, where the statute does not provide either for extension of time or to condone the default in depositing the rent within the stipulated period, the court does not have the power to do so.

39. The failure of the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent becomes a 'default' in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act once the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority records its satisfaction in an order under Section 12(3) that the tenant failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of the admitted arrears of rent. On such satisfaction being recorded the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and the direction to put the landlord in possession of the building would follow automatically. The default committed by the tenant in depositing the rent in terms of the order under Section 12(1) and (2) cannot be condoned by the Rent R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 42 Control Court or the Appellate Authority, while passing an order under Section 12(3), by permitting the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent after such an order.

40. The judgment of this Court in J. Ramkumar [2022 (1) KHC 495] was under challenge before the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.18301 of 2021. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Apex Court was not inclined to interfere with the order of this Court and accordingly, the special leave petition along with connected matters were dismissed by the order dated 18.11.2021. The said order reads thus;

"After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the Special Leave Petitions. Mr.Roy Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he deposited a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- in compliance of order dated 16.04.2019 passed by this Court. According to him that represented the rent due as on that day.

According to the petitioner, the amount of Rs.26,00,000/- represented the amount of admitted arrears. He, therefore, prays that when this Court is not accepting the request to set aside the order under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and grant relief otherwise the Court may direct to return the amount that was deposited by him. This is objected to Mr.Liju V. R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 43 Stephen, learned counsel for the respondent. We notice that the order was dated 16.04.2019. We would take the view that the interest of justice would require that after deducting a sum of Rs.11,10,000/- which would be the rent due for a period of 30 months from 16.04.2019 the amount remaining, namely, Rs.14,90,000/- must be returned to the petitioner. It is accordingly so ordered.

Out of the amount of Rs.26,00,000/-, petitioner is free to withdraw a sum of Rs.14,90,000/- from the Rent Control Court. It will be open to the respondent-landlord to appropriate towards the rent for the period as already noted the balance amount of Rs.11,10,000/-. It can be withdrawn by the respondent-landlord. We leave it open to the landlord-respondent to seek remedies as regards any amount due towards arrears of rent.

Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of."

(underline supplied)

41. In the instant case, in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019, an application filed by the landlords under Section 12 of the Act seeking an order directing the tenants to deposit admitted arrears of rent, the tenants filed a counter contending that the monthly rent of the tenanted premises is only Rs.1,60,000/- and not Rs.1,83,000/- as claimed by the landlords. Admittedly, the tenants had not paid any amount towards monthly rent from R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 44 January, 2020 onwards even at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/-. After considering the rival contentions the Rent Control Court passed an order dated 30.01.2021 in I.A.No.4 of 2020, whereby the tenants were directed to pay admitted arrears of rent amounting to Rs.20,80,000/- for the period from 01.01.2020 till 30.01.2021, at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/- per month on or before 30.03.2021. The tenants have not chosen to pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent. No petition was filed for enlargement of time for paying the admitted arrears of rent. Therefore, the Rent control Court originally passed an order dated 31.03.2021, under Section 12(3) of the Act, whereby the tenants were directed to vacate the petition schedule building and put the landlords in possession of the building.

42. The tenants filed I.A.No.6 of 2021 seeking an order to review the order dated 31.03.2021. That application was allowed on 27.08.2021 and the tenants were granted two weeks' time to show cause why an order under Section 12(3) of the Act shall not be passed against them. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 16.10.2021, 28.10.2021 and 22.11.2021. Since the tenants did not pay or deposit the admitted arrears of rent and failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of the said amount, the Rent R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 45 Control Court passed the order dated 22.11.2021 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019, under Section 12(3) of the Act, whereby the tenants were directed to vacate the petition schedule building and to put the landlords in possession of the building.

43. Though the time limit fixed in the order of the Rent Control Court dated 27.08.2021, to show cause why an order under Section 12(3) of the Act shall not be passed was only two weeks (14 days), the Rent Control Court passed the impugned order only on 22.11.2021, after 87 days. During the said period, the tenants failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of the said amount, in order to avoid an order under Section 12(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Rent Control Court passed the impugned order on 22.11.2021 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019, whereby the tenants were directed to vacate the petition schedule building and put the landlords in possession of that building.

44. In the judgment dated 04.07.2022 in R.C.A.No.5 of 2022, the Appellate Authority noticed that the appellants-tenants have no case that they have paid any amount towards monthly rent to the landlords after the filing of the Rent Control Petition, which is one filed on 01.10.2019. The tenants have also not produced any R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 46 receipts or documents to prove the payment of rent during the pendency of the Rent Control Petition. The tenants have not even paid the landlords the monthly rent admitted by them in their counter to I.A.No.4 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019. The tenants failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of the admitted arrears of rent. Therefore, the Appellate Authority found that the admitted arrears of rent during the period from 01.01.2020 till 30.01.2021 comes to Rs.20,80,000/- (Rs.1,60,000 x 13) and in the above circumstances, the Rent Control Court was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order under Section 12(3) of the Act.

45. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the tenants would fairly submit that the tenants have not placed any materials before the Rent Control Court to show that they have paid or deposited the arrears of rent, at the rate of Rs.1,60,000/-, for the period from 01.01.2020 till 30.01.2021, in terms of the order dated 30.01.2021 of the Rent Control Court under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, or even the rent accrued after the said period. The learned counsel would contend that the Rent Control Court committed a grave error in relying on the admission made by the tenants that the monthly rent payable was Rs.1,60,000/-, for R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 47 passing an order under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, followed by the order under Section 12(3) of the Act. The contention raised by the tenants in this regard was not properly appreciated by the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority.

46. The learned counsel for the tenants would further contend that considering the quantum of arrears of rent, the Appellate Authority granted the tenants three months' time to comply with the direction contained in the order of the Rent Control Court to pay admitted arrears of rent, either in lump or in installments, which warrants no interference by this Court. The said time limit granted by the Appellate Authority is not yet over. The Appellate Authority cannot be found fault with in granting such time, in view of the provisions under Section 23(1)(i) of the Act.

47. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlords would contend that, after confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of the Act, the Appellate Authority went wrong in granting the tenants three months' time to comply with the direction contained in the order of the Rent Control Court to pay admitted arrears of rent, either in lump or in installments. The judgment of the Appellate Authority to the extent the tenants were R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 48 granted time for making payment of admitted arrears of rent warrants interference by this Court.

48. As per Section 12(2), the deposit of admitted arrears of rent under Section 12(1) shall be made within such time the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority may fix. As per the proviso to Section 12(2), the time limit fixed by the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks from the date of the order and the time fixed for the deposit of rent which subsequently accrues due shall not be less than two weeks from the date on which the rent becomes due. As per Section 12(3), if any tenant fails to pay or deposit the admitted rent as provided under Section 12(1) and (2), the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.

49. In Shaji M. [2020 (2) KHC 574] a Full Bench of this Court held that, in view of the principle evolved in Narayanan [2004 (3) KLT 955], when the time fixed for deposit of the arrears R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 49 of rent runs out and the tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not expected to pass an order ordering ejectment of the tenant forthwith. The Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should normally adjourn the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date fixed for deposit, thereby allowing reasonable time to the tenant to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent, if he has committed default in payment of the admitted arrears of rent.

50. As held by the Division Bench in K.P. Mohammed [1963 KLT 688] an order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) of the Act is not amenable to correction under Section 11(2)(c), which relates to orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) only. As held by another Division Bench in Venugopalan [1974 KLT 640] even assuming that for purpose of execution an order under Section 12(3) of the Act can be equated with and treated as the same, as one under Section 11 of the Act, the consequence enjoined by an order under Section 12(3) for failure to deposit the admitted arrears in time cannot be vacated or obliterated by payment at any subsequent stages or periods.

R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 50

51. As per Section 23(1)(i) of the Act, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority shall have the power of enlargement of time originally fixed or granted. As already noticed hereinbefore, when the time fixed for deposit of the arrears of rent runs out and the tenant has not deposited the same, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is not expected to pass an order ordering ejectment of the tenant forthwith. The Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, should normally adjourn the hearing of the case to a date beyond the date fixed for deposit, thereby allowing reasonable time to the tenant to show sufficient cause for not depositing the admitted arrears of rent. Within the said reasonable time granted by the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority (beyond the date originally fixed for deposit of arrears of rent), the tenant can deposit the admitted arrears of rent in terms of the order passed under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, by seeking enlargement of time under Section 23(1)(i). On the failure of the tenant to show sufficient cause for the default in complying with the direction to deposit or pay the admitted arrears of rent, within the reasonable time granted by the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority (beyond the date R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 51 originally fixed for deposit of arrears of rent), the consequences provided under Section 12(3) of the Act shall follow. On the said date, by virtue of the order passed under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, unless sufficient cause has been shown for the default committed, the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and direction to put the landlord in possession of the building would follow automatically.

52. As already noticed, the failure of the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent becomes a 'default' in terms of Section 12(3) of the Act once the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority records its satisfaction in an order under Section 12(3) that the tenant failed to show sufficient cause for non-payment of the admitted arrears of rent. On such satisfaction being recorded the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and the direction to put the landlord in possession of the building would follow automatically. The default committed by the tenant in depositing the rent in terms of the order under Section 12(1) and (2) cannot be condoned by the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, while passing an order under Section 12(3), by permitting the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent after such an order. R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 52

53. Therefore, in an order passed under Section 12(3) of the Act, which is one passed on being satisfied that the tenant has not shown sufficient cause for non-payment of the admitted arrears of rent, in terms of the order under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority cannot enlarge the time limit originally granted for payment of the admitted arrears of rent, invoking the provisions under Section 23(1)(i), since on passing such an order under Section 12(3), the consequence of stoppage of the proceedings and direction to put the landlord in possession of the building would follow automatically.

54. In the above circumstances, we find no merits in the contention of the tenants that, in view of the provisions under Section 23(1)(i) of the Act, the Appellate Authority cannot be found fault with in granting the tenants three months' time to comply with the direction contained in the order of the Rent Control Court to pay admitted arrears of rent [order dated 30.01.2021 in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2019], either in lump or in installments.

In the result, R.C.Rev.No.147 of 2022 filed by the landlords is allowed, by setting aside the aforesaid direction contained in the judgment dated 04.07.2022 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority R.C.Rev.Nos.147 & 151 of 2022 53 in R.C.A.No.5 of 2022. R.C.Rev.No.151 of 2022 filed by the tenants fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE MIN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court