Kerala High Court Rules Section 12(1) of Rent Control Act Mandates Tenants to Pay Admitted Arrears in Appeals Against Eviction Orders, Reinforcing Landlords’ Right to Timely Rent Payment

Court’s Decision:
The Kerala High Court ruled that an application under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is maintainable in appeals filed against orders passed under Section 12(3). This expands the tenant’s obligation to pay admitted arrears of rent during both initial eviction proceedings and subsequent appeals. The court overruled previous judgments in City Co-operative Hospital, Sulaiman Sahib, and Mohammed Shameer, which had limited this obligation to final eviction orders under Section 11, stating that such an interpretation undermines the purpose of the Rent Control Act and disrupts the landlord’s right to due rent.

Facts:
The landlord filed a Rent Control Petition for eviction based on arrears of rent, specifying amounts disputed by the tenant. The tenant initially defaulted on payments ordered by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(1) and, later, additional arrears accumulated during the appeal. When the landlord sought further action under Section 12(3), the Rent Control Court directed the tenant to hand over possession. The tenant appealed, arguing that an application under Section 12(1) was not maintainable in appeals arising from Section 12(3) orders.

Issues:
The primary legal question was whether an application under Section 12(1) for payment of arrears is maintainable in appeals filed against orders under Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The landlord contended that Section 12 is intended to compel the tenant to pay or deposit admitted arrears throughout the eviction process, including appeals. They argued that exempting Section 12(3) orders from Section 12(1) obligations allows tenants to delay payments and abuse the process, ultimately defeating the Act’s objectives.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The tenant argued that Section 12(1) applies solely to eviction applications under Section 11, asserting that appeals against orders made under Section 12(3) do not fall within its scope. Relying on past rulings, they claimed that extending this requirement to appeals against non-final orders would be unjustified.

Analysis of the Law:
The court examined the language of Section 12, emphasizing that it covers “any order” made on an eviction application under Section 11, which extends to both initial and interim orders. The court stated that the Act’s structure mandates tenants to clear arrears as a condition for contesting eviction proceedings or appeals. Section 12 was interpreted as a statutory mechanism to ensure continuous rent payment during proceedings, beneficial to the landlord.

Precedent Analysis:
The Full Bench overruled the decisions in City Co-operative Hospital, Sulaiman Sahib, and Mohammed Shameer, which restricted Section 12’s application to final eviction orders, finding this interpretation narrow and contrary to the legislative intent. Citing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of similar provisions in other rent control laws, the court underscored the need for a liberal interpretation favoring the landlord’s right to due rent.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court held that Section 12(1) obligates tenants to pay arrears in any appeal against orders stemming from eviction proceedings under Section 11, including orders under Section 12(3). It found that the phrase “any order” in Section 12(1) reflects the legislature’s intent to ensure landlords’ right to rent, protecting them from prolonged defaults due to procedural appeals by tenants. It noted that permitting tenants to withhold payment during appeals undermines both the Act’s intent and the landlord’s rights.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that tenants must pay admitted arrears during any appeal involving eviction-related orders, including orders under Section 12(3). The court dismissed the tenant’s appeal, upholding the order for eviction and directing the tenant to vacate the premises within two months.

Implications:
This ruling strengthens landlords’ rights under the Kerala Rent Control Act by reinforcing tenants’ obligation to settle arrears even in interim appeals, reducing potential delays in eviction processes due to unpaid rent. It underscores that rent payment is a continuous obligation in tenancy and eviction proceedings.