Under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, a landlord can seek an intermediate order from the Rent Control Court directing a tenant to deposit all “admitted arrears of rent” under Section 12. This is a powerful interim remedy, but its application hinges on how a court determines what rent is “admitted” without conducting a full trial.
Several High Court judgments have clarified the scope of the court’s inquiry at this stage.
The Limited Inquiry to Ascertain Admitted Arrears
In Koyakkanari Sivadasan v. K.K. Nirmala [2022:KER:18384], the High Court of Kerala observed that the court is not expected to conduct a full adjudication of the disputed arrears. Instead, it can conduct a “limited inquiry.”
This inquiry should be confined to scrutinizing the pleadings (the main eviction petition and the Section 12 application) and the documentary evidence produced by both parties.
The purpose of this limited inquiry under Section 12 of the Act is to ascertain admissions regarding:
- The landlord-tenant relationship.
- The rate of monthly rent.
- The quantum of arrears due.
The court can infer “admitted arrears” from key documents, which include:
- The rent deed or lease agreement.
- Rent receipts.
- Money order receipts or bank records showing rent payment.
- The petitions under Section 11 an 12, and the objections thereto
If these documents, on their face, indicate a clear period of default, the court is empowered to issue an order, as a tenant’s simple denial is not enough to defeat the application.
The High Court further added that the materials infer such admission, the Court shall direct the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent due as on the date of application under Section 12 of the Act.
This judgment clarifies that Section 12 of the Kerala Rent Control Act is limited to enforcing the payment of admitted rent and not for adjudicating disputed amounts. This principle has been cited in subsequent cases.
A Blank Denial of Statutory Liability Insufficient
The High Court, in Gopala Panicker Baiju v. Mallika [2018 (5) KHC 95], clarified that a tenant cannot evade their statutory liability under Section 12 with a “bare denial” in their pleadings.
The Court must ascertain, on a consideration of the tenant’s objections, whether his denial of liability is bona fide, and if so, defer its decision regarding the deposit of admitted arrears.
Pre-Litigation vs. Post-Litigation Arrears
The judgment in Sadique v. Mohammed Umair [2017:KER:26877] draws a crucial distinction between two phases of rent payment under Section 12:
Pre-Litigation Arrears: This refers to the “admitted arrears of rent” that accrued before the main eviction petition was filed. The limited inquiry and documentary analysis apply primarily to this amount.
Post-Litigation Rent: This refers to the rent that becomes due during the pendency of the case. For this, the tenant’s liability is to continue paying the admitted monthly rent rate as it falls due.
Conclusion
In essence, the Rent Control Court has a summary power under Section 12 to look beyond a tenant’s denials and ascertain “admitted arrears” by examining key documents like the rent deed, petitions and objections, and payment records.
If this limited inquiry reveals admitted arrears, the court will direct the tenant to deposit them and continue paying future rent.
Failure to comply with such an order will result in the court stopping all further proceedings and issuing an immediate order directing the tenant to surrender possession of the building to the landlord.
