Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Narendran, J.
Acts
  • S. 11(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965.
  • S. 11(1) of Act 2 of 1965.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Narendran, J.
Acts
  • S. 11(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965.
  • S. 11(1) of Act 2 of 1965.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent sub-tenant, who is the petitioner in this Civil Revision, was subject to an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965. The petitioner’s appeal against this eviction was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, and a subsequent revision petition before the District Court was also dismissed. Consequently, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision petition challenging these decisions.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Rent Control Court erred in deciding the eviction petition without preliminarily determining if the denial of the landlord’s title by the petitioner was bona fide, as required under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965.
  2. Whether, in an eviction petition under Section 11(2) of the Act for arrears of rent, the tenant is obliged to pay only those arrears that are not barred by limitation, or whether all arrears, including those barred by limitation, must be paid to vacate the eviction order.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Rent Control Court wrongly proceeded with eviction without first deciding if the denial of the landlord’s title was bona fide, as mandated by the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act.
  • The petitioner contended that the sub-tenant cannot deny the title of the immediate landlord who is only a tenant and not the owner, thus there is no scope for denial of title in such tenant-landlord-subtenant relationships.
  • The petitioner argued that under Section 11(2) of the Act, for eviction due to arrears of rent, only arrears not barred by limitation need to be paid. The tenant should not be required to pay arrears barred by limitation to vacate the eviction order.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Curwen v. Milburn ((1889) 42 Ch. D. 424) Statute-barred debts remain dues, though they cannot be enforced by action. The court applied this principle to hold that arrears of rent barred by limitation are still "due" under Section 11(2) of the Act, and thus must be paid to vacate eviction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the issue of denial of title by first noting that title means ownership, which the landlord possesses, but the tenant does not. Since the eviction petition was filed by the tenant against the sub-tenant, the sub-tenant cannot deny the title of the tenant who is not the owner. Therefore, there is no scope for a bona fide denial of title in this context, and the Rent Control Court was not required to preliminarily decide on the bona fides of such denial.

Regarding arrears of rent, the court referred to Section 11(2) of the Kerala Buildings Act and the precedent in Curwen v. Milburn to clarify that arrears barred by limitation still constitute rent "due." The tenant remains liable to pay all arrears, including those barred by limitation, to vacate the eviction order. The inability to enforce recovery through a suit does not extinguish the landlord’s right to the arrears under the Act. Hence, the petitioner’s contention that only non-barred arrears need be paid was rejected.

The court also exercised discretion to grant the petitioner sub-tenant a limited period to vacate the premises upon giving an undertaking to hand back possession within three months, thereby preventing immediate dispossession.

Holding and Implications

The Civil Revision Petition is DISMISSED IN LIMINE. The court confirmed that in eviction petitions filed by a tenant-landlord against a sub-tenant, there is no requirement for the Rent Control Court to preliminarily decide on the bona fides of denial of title by the sub-tenant. Furthermore, all arrears of rent, including those barred by limitation, are considered "due" and must be paid to vacate an eviction order under Section 11(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

The petitioner sub-tenant was granted a conditional reprieve, allowing possession to be handed back within three months upon an undertaking, preventing immediate dispossession. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application and clarification of existing statutory provisions and precedent.

Show full summary ...

    Francis v. Jacob

    1. The respondent sub-tenant in a petition for eviction by the tenant-landlord is the petitioner in this Civil Revision. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under S. 11(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The revision filed by the petitioner then before the District Court also met with the same fate. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioner has filed this Civil Revision.

    2. The main contentions of the petitioner are twofold: The first contention is that the Rent Control Court was in the wrong in deciding the petition for eviction without preliminarily deciding the question whether the denial of title of the landlord raised by the petitioner in the written objections was bona fide or not, as has to be done under the second proviso to S. 11(1) of Act 2 of 1965. What is to be denied is the title of the landlord. Title is nothing but the ownership which only the owner has got.

    3. A tenant has no ownership of the building which is vested in his landlord. So, in a case where the petition for eviction has been filed by the tenant-landlord against his sub-tenant, as in this case, there is no scope for the sub-tenant to deny the title of his immediate landlord who is only the tenant of the building. When there is no scope itself for denying the title why should the Rent Control Court be put to the difficulty of deciding whether the denial is bona fide or not and that too preliminarily. Even if the Rent Control Court takes the trouble of giving a decision on the question of bona fides of the denial of title in a case where the tenant has filed a petition for eviction against the sub-tenant, that will not in any way improve the position.

    4. The next contention is that in a petition for eviction under S. 11(2) of the Act for arrears of rent the liability of the tenant is only to pay arrears which are not barred by limitation and if the tenant pays that within the time allowed, the eviction order will stand vacated. As per S. 11(2)(b) the Rent Control Court can pass an order for eviction only if it is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent ‘due’. As has been held in Curwen v. Milburn ((1889) 42 Ch. D. 424) ‘Statute-barred debts are dues, though payment of them cannot be enforced by action’. As per New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language, the meaning given to the word ‘due’ is ‘that which is due or owed’. Even if some arrears are time barred, that will not cease to be arrears ‘due’ as the tenant still owes that amount to the landlord. Under S. 11(2)(c) for the Rent Control Court to vacate order for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, the tenant will have to deposit the arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings. It goes without saying that arrears of rent will include arrears, if any, barred by limitation. Simply because a remedy by way of a suit to realise such arrears is lost, it cannot be said that the landlord has lost his right for the same. All the rent that remains unpaid is rent due from him as the tenant continues to owe the same to the landlord. Under S. 11(2)(c) also the tenant has to deposit the arrears of rent (not the arrears of rent not barred by limitation only) to get the order of eviction vacated. The tenant is made to pay the arrears over which the landlord has a right. As the landlord is not suing the tenant for arrears and realising the same, the question whether part of the arrears is time-barred or not does not arise under S. 11(2). So, the contention that under S. 11(2) the tenant need only pay arrears of rent not barred by limitation has only to be rejected.

    5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I think it is only proper that the petitioner sub-tenant is given some breathing time to vacate the premises. If the petitioner gives an undertaking before the Rent Control Court within two weeks from today that he will hand back possession within 3 months from today there will be a direction that the petitioner should not be dispossessed for 3 months from today.

    6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.

    7. Issue carbon copy of the order to the petitioner's counsel.

    8. Dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Francis v. Jacob
    (Jul 26, 1983)