LexCHINNAMMA versus GOPALAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CHINNAMMA A v. GOPALAN AND ORS. OCTOBER 13, 1995 [A.M. AHMADI, C.J., S.C. SEN AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.) B Kera/a Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965: Sections 11(2)(a), 11(2)(b), 11(2)(c) and 12-Eviction on ground of non-payment of rent-Arrears of rent-Notice mandatory-Eviction C Orde~Setting aside of-Tenant obliged to deposit only amount intimated in notice-Section 12-Applicable only during pendency of proceedings. The appellant was a tenant of a residential building nnder the first respondent-landlord on lease at a rent of Rs. 20 per mensnm w.e.f. 1.8.1972. She was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.6.1975. The respondent sent D a notice on 22.6.1977 terminating the tenancy and demanding surrender of the building. Subsequently, the respondent filed a petition seeking eviction of the appellant - tenant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and E bonafide requirement of the building for his own occupation under Sec- tions 11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. The plea for bonafide requirement for respondent's own occupation was found against. However, the Rent Controller ordered eviction under Section 11(2) F (b) of the Act on the ground of default in payment of rent. The appellant filed an appeal before the appellant authority which directed the Rent Controller to consider the maintainability of the petition. The Rent Con- troller passed an order on 22.2.1980 directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 540 being arrears of rent due as on 1.2.1980, interest at 6% per annum, Rs. G 25 towards cost and rent for subsequent four months. This amount was specifically quantified as Rs. 750, on deposit of which the appellant would be entitled to apply for getting the eviction order vacated under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. f The appellant deposited the sum of Rs. 750 on 6.4.82 and prayed for H 319 320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A setting aside the order of eviction. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition. The appeal was also dismissed. The appellant filed a revision petition before the District Judge which was allowed. B c The respondent filed original petition before the High Court which set aside the order passed in revision by the District Judge. The High Court held that it was not the arrears specified in the order of eviction but the deposit of all arrears of rent that accrued even subsequent thereto till the date of filing of the application under Section 11(2) (c) of the Act, that should be made. Aggrieved by the High Court's Judgment the appellant preferred the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. A mere look at Sections 11 and 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 would show that they operate in different situations. Under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act the Court passes D a final order of eviction, directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, if there is default as provided therein. The execution of such final order is statutorily suspended for a period of one month. Within that time or such further time as the Court may allow, the tenant is given an opportunity to deposit the arrears of rent with interest E and cost of the proceedings and, if so done, the Court is bound to vacate the order passed under section 11(2) (b) of the Act. [328-D·El F G 1.2. On the other hand, the provisions of set:!:in 12 are applicable during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction. Section 12 is a special provision which provides a summary procedure whereby during the penden· cy of the proceedings the Court can direct the tenant to pay the current rent as admitted by the tenant and ifit is not so done, the main eviction proceed· ings itself will come to an end and the court is enabled to pass an order directing the tenant to up the landlord in possession of the building. [328-F-H] 1.3: It is nobody's case that either the Rent Control Court or the appellate Court or the Rivisional Court passed any order under section 12 of the Act regarding the payment of subsequent arrears (or future rent till the termination of proceedings) admitted by the tenant, when the proceedings were pending for eviction and before the order was passed H under section 11(2) (b) of the Act. [329-C] CHINNAMMA v. GOPALAN 321 1.4. To invoke section 12 of the Act, an independent order passed A during the pendency of the proceedings under section 11
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.