The City Co-Operative Hospital vs E.V.Luquman on 21 November, 2015
In the
decision in Jose v. Xavier (supra) also, the said question was
not raised and adjudicated.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.40 seconds)Documents citing
Jose P.O vs Xavier on 28 March, 2012
Rasiya vs S.Sujith on 19 November, 2021
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant
would contend that the order of the Appellate Authority dated
08.04.2021 is one in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.A.No.3 of 2020
filed by the tenant seeking stay of the execution of the order
of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, i.e. stay of the
execution proceedings in E.P.No.5 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.52 of
2016 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court, Palakkad. In
the absence of an application filed by the landlord, invoking
the provisions under Section 12 of the Act, the Appellate
Authority went wrong in imposing such conditions in the
impugned orders. Going by the statutory mandate of Section
12 of the Act, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate
Authority, as the case may be, in a petition for eviction filed
under Section 11 of the Act or in an appeal arising out of an
order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on such a
petition under Section 11 of the Act, can direct the tenant to
pay admitted arrears of rent as on the date of that order and
also continue to pay rent for the subsequent months, within
a time limit that has to be specified under Section 12(2) of
the Act. In case of any default on the part of the tenant in
6
R.C.Rev.No.138 of 2021
depositing or making payment of the admitted arrears of
rent, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority, as
the case may be, in the absence of sufficient cause shown by
the tenant for not complying with the order passed under
Section 12(1) of the Act, proceed with under Section 12(3) of
the Act. The procedure adopted by the Appellate Authority is
not in conformity with the provisions under Section 12 of the
Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied on
the decision of the Apex Court in Chinnamma v. Gopalan
[(1995) 6 SCC 491 : 1995 (2) KLT 755] and the decision
of this Court in Jose P.O. v. Xavier and another [2017
(3) KHC 844], etc.
Koyakkanari Sivadasan vs K.K.Nirmala on 5 April, 2022
25. The observations of this Court in Sadique [2017
(3) KLT 759] is that the Court cannot substitute its finding
after an enquiry and adjudication on the arrears of rent, in the
place of admitted arrears of rent for, an adjudication would fall
under the purview of Section 11(2)(b) of the Act only. It was
thus held that it was totally impermissible for the Rent Control
Court or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, to have
an adjudication after conducting an enquiry regarding the
arrears of rent contemplated under Section 12 of the Act.
After an anxious consideration we hold that the principles in
Sadique [2017 (3) KLT 759] or Jose P.O. [2017 3 KLT
222] are not in conflict with the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Manik Lal Majumdar [(2005) 5 SCC 400]. The
decisions in Sadique and Jose P.O. are thus explained.
J. Ramkumar vs Ashok Jacob on 20 December, 2016
Again, this Court very
recently had the occasion to consider the same question in
Jose v. Xavier [2017 (3) KLT 222 (O.P(RC)
No.169/2016)] and it was observed that it has got two
limbs; the first limb stands for the pre-litigation arrears of
rent and the second limb stands for the arrears which may
R.C.Revisions.141 & 215 of 2017 :5:
1