Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.38 seconds)Section 11 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
P.G.Rakesh Menon vs Homex Trade Links Pvt Ltd on 17 August, 2012
In Rakesh Menon v. Homex Trade Links (P)
Ltd., [2012 (4) KLT 18], a decision relied on by the
learned counsel for the respondent-landlord, a Division Bench
of this Court repelled the argument that the landlord has to
file a petition under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act. The Division Bench held that, if the
25
R.C.Rev.No.138 of 2021
Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority notices that the
arrears of rent admitted or the rent that fell due
subsequently is not paid or deposited within the period
specified in Section 12, it is the duty of the Rent Control
Court or the Appellate Authority to follow the procedure
envisaged by that Section.
Mohammed Shameer K.P vs C. Ashokan on 29 March, 2017
In Mohammed Shammer v. Ashokan [2015
(1) KLT 396] it was contended before the Division Bench by
the tenant that the expression "on the application" occurring
in Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act also can be referable to an application under
Section 12. The Division Bench did not accept this submission
since Section 12(1) does not refer to an application under
that Section, but refers to only an application under Section
Sankaran Pillai(Dead) By Lrs vs V.P.Venuguduswami & Ors on 29 July, 1999
31. In Shaji M., 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
36
R.C.Rev.No.138 of 2021
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, 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
37
R.C.Rev.No.138 of 2021
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
[1975 KLT 542] and Narayanan v. Muraleedhara Maran
[1964 KLT 509].
Narayanan vs Vinod on 27 May, 2004
In Narayanan v. Vinod [2004 (3) KLT 955]
the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority
under Section 12(3) 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
30
R.C.Rev.No.138 of 2021
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 'unless the
31
R.C.Rev.No.138 of 2021
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.
Jose P.O vs Xavier on 28 March, 2012
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.
Chinnamma vs Gopalan And Others on 13 October, 1995
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.
1