Kerala High Court
S.Ramalingam vs V.Brunda on 3 March, 2020
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal, C.S.Dias
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1941
OP (RC).No.45 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 32/2017 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/S:
S.RAMALINGAM
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. SANKARAMOORTHY, SIVAKRIPA HOUSE, VAIKOM
VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.S.MANILAL
SRI.S.NIDHEESH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 V.BRUNDA
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. MADHAVAN, REVATHY HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMCHERRY, NADUVILE MURI, NADUVILE
VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM-686 141.
2 RAJAM
AGED 75 YEARS
W/O. KRISHNAIYYA, REVATHY HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMCHERRY, NADUVILE MURI,NADUVILE
VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM-686 141.
OP (RC).No.45 OF 2020
..2..
3 K.MAHADEVAN
S/O.KRISHNAIYYA, REVATHY HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMCHERRY, NADUVILE MURI,NADUVILE
VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM-686 141.
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (RC).No.45 OF 2020
..3..
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of March 2020 K.Harilal, J.
The petitioner is the tenant who is confronting with a summary order of eviction passed against him under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 (Rent Control Act for short) on the application filed by the respondents herein. According to the respondents, the rent payable from February, 2017 to April, 2018 at the rate of Rs.11,000/- is pending due and thereby they are entitled to get Rs.1,65,000/- as admitted arrears of rent.
2. The landlord-tenant relationship, the rate of rent and the period of default are admitted. Hence the Rent Control Court passed an order under Section OP (RC).No.45 OF 2020 ..4..
12(2) directing the petitioner herein to deposit rent arrears to the tune of Rs.1,65,000/- within a period of one month from 09.11.2018.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit the amount within the time limit fixed by the Rent Control Court. Six months after the date fixed by the Court, when the landlord filed an application seeking an order under Section 12(3), the petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking permission to deposit arrears of rent. As rightly observed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority mere deposit of rent arrears will not be sufficient to escape from the rigour of summary eviction envisaged under Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act, if the deposit is made after one month, the time provided under Section 12(2) of the Rent Control Act.
OP (RC).No.45 OF 2020 ..5..
3. In the instant case, the admitted amount has been deposited after almost eight months from the date of passing of order under Section 12(2). Hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order under challenge. The Appellate Authority is fully justified in passing the impugned order under challenge.
The Original Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL JUDGE Sd/-
C.S.DIAS JUDGE kkj/03.03.2020 OP (RC).No.45 OF 2020 ..6..
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 968/19 IN RCA 32/17 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY II KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16.7.19.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN RCA 32/17 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY II KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN RCA 32/17 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY II KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.968/19 IN RCA 32/17 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY II KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EP 67/19 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT VAIKOM.