IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 RCRev..No. 30 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.3/2003 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.71/2004 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN IA/RSPDT.IN RCA/ PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE MATHEW, S/O. M.K.GEORGE, KARINGATTIL VEEDU, VAKAYAR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY,RICKY MATHEW, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE MATHEW, KARIINGATTIL, VAKAYAR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN IA/APPELLANT IN RCA/CR.PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN T.GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE VARGHESE, TC.NO.9/974(4), PANICKERS LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.SUSHYA RAJAN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No. 30 OF 2008 & I.A.No.344 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. We have heard Sri.V.Philip Mathews, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, senior counsel for the respondent. 2. Impugned in this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 is an interlocutory order passed by the rent control appellate authority dismissing an application under Section 12(1) filed by the landlord in an appeal preferred by the tenant. The tenant's appeal was directed against the summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act. The copy of the summary order under section 12(3) which is impugned by the tenant in R.C.A.No.3/03 before the rent control appellate authority is also produced by the revision petitioner. 3. The landlord revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1059/07 out of desperation when it was noticed that the tenant was not paying even the RCR.No.30/08 2 arrears of rent which had fallen due subsequent to the institution of the RCA. Under the impugned order the rent control appellate authority has taken the view that under Section 12 the liability of the tenant is to deposit the arrears of rent admitted by him only and not the rent claimed by the landlord. It appears to us that the learned rent control appellate authority has not noticed the distinction between “ arrears of rent” envisaged under Section 12(1) and also the rent which falls due subsequent to the institution of the proceedings for eviction. This court had occasion to consider the issue in Jain Abraham v. Best buy T.V.& Home Appliances ( 2009(1) KLT 477). In that judgment, this court noticed the distinction between “ arrears of rent ”and the rent which falls due subsequently and found that as far as rent which falls due subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings is concerned, the tenant will be liable to pay the same irrespective of his admissions. The insistence of the statute in section 12(1) that there should be admission from the tenant is only regarding “arrears”. The rent which falls due subsequent to the institution of the eviction proceedings will not qualify as arrears. We notice that in the instant case the contract RCR.No.30/08 3 rent is not in dispute. The respondent tenant has no case that the rent which fell due subsequent to the commencement of the rent control proceedings has been paid by him. In that view of the matter, it should have been held by the rent control appellate authority that the respondent was not entitled to contest the rent control petition in terms of Section 12(1) of the Act. 4. When this revision petition came up for consideration before this court on 07/11/2008, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that he will be vacating the building which is the subject matter of the RCP within three months from 07/11/2008. Recording that submission, the following order was passed by this court on 07/11/2008: “ On 3-10-2008 we passed an order directing the tenant to pay the arrears fell due from the date of the appellate order. When the matter came up for consideration today, it was submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner/landlord that the above order has not been complied with. Learned counsel appearing for the tenant RCR.No.30/08 4 submits that his client is prepared to vacate the premises and seeks for three month's time. The time as sought for, is granted. The tenant may surrender the key of the premises to the Rent Control Court within the aforesaid period of three months. Post after three months.” 5. Today, it is confessed by Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel for the respondent that the tenant was unable to honour his commitment to this court and that he has not so far vacated. I.A.No.344/09 has been filed by the respondent seeking two month's time from today to the petitioner tenant to vacate the premises in compliance with this court's order dated 07/11/2008. We are inclined to allow that application only to the extent of granting time till 31/03/2009. In the view we have taken regarding the tenant's liability under Section 12 to pay rent falling due subsequent to the commencement of the eviction proceedings, the order impugned in this revision is liable to be set aside. We set aside that order and direct the rent control appellate authority to post the RCA on 31/03/2009. If it is noticed on that day that the respondent tenant has not vacated the RCR.No.30/08 5 premises as undertaken by him before this court, that court will take up the RCA for hearing and dispose of the RCA immediately and at any rate within five days from 31/03/2009. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE sv. RCR.No.30/08 6