Tenant Ordered To Pay Enhanced Rent Can't Be Burdened With Substantial Arrears Due To Delay In Proceedings: Kerala HC Calls For Reasonable Installments

The Court referred to the decision in Irvin John Jayarajan and Others v. Madhavi alias Narayani Amma (2022) held that the time limit of four months prescribed under Section 24 of the Rent Control Act for disposing of proceedings before the Rent Control Court also applies to appeals and revisions.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhammad Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that burdening a tenant with a lump sum liability undermines the very purpose of Rent Control Act, which is to safeguard the tenants from exploitation.

Court said, “However, in practice, such proceedings frequently experience significant delays, extending over several years due to procedural inefficiencies and judicial backlog. As a consequence of these shortcomings, by the time when the order of fair rent is finally upheld by the higher court, the tenant is suddenly burdened with a substantial amount in arrears, which may have accrued over several years. The obligation to pay such a large sum in one go places the tenant in a financially precarious situation, defeating the very objective of the Rent Control Act. One of the prominent purposes of the Rent Control Act is to protect tenants from exploitation and ensure fairness in landlord-tenant disputes.”

In the facts of the case, the tenant who was paying rupees 3000 per month was ordered to pay an amount of rupees 30,000 per month as fair rent by the Rent Control Court in the year 2021. Aggrieved by the order, the tenant has approached the High Court.

It was submitted by the landlord that Rent Control Court determined the fair rent after analysing rents of nearby tenanted buildings and considering the commission report.

The Court however observed that increasing rent from 3,000 rupees to 30,000 rupees would cause undue hardship to the tenant and thus fixed the fair rent at 20,000 rupees per month. The High Court fixed the fair rent on considering various parameters like age and condition of building, lack of sufficient parking facility etc.

Further, the Court noted that the Rent Control Court had enhanced the rent in 2021 and four years have lapsed. It thus observed that the arrears of rent must have become a huge sum which would cause a financial liability to the tenant. The Court thus stated that when the tenant has to pay arrears and when it is accumulated into a large sum of money, it can be ordered to be paid in reasonable installments to protect the tenant from financial liability.

Court added, “This unintended consequence of judicial delay undermines the spirit of the Rent Control Act, which aims to balance the rights of both landlords and tenants fairly. It is thus necessary to ensure that procedural delays do not result in injustice. A fair and pragmatic approach must be adopted to prevent tenants from being unfairly burdened due to circumstances beyond their control. To mitigate such hardship, it is imperative that the courts should adopt an equitable approach. One possible solution is to allow tenants to discharge the arrears in reasonable installments rather than a lump-sum, together with interest.”

The Court additionally stated that there must strict adherence to statutory timeline for completion of fair rent proceedings.

In the facts of the case, the Court ordered the tenant to pay 20,000 rupees per month as rent. It is also ordered that enhanced rent has to be paid from the date of the order issued by the Rent Control Court, that is from March 2021. The Court further permitted the tenant to pay the entire arrears together with interest in twelve equal monthly installments.

Case Title: P J Francis v C D Jose

Case No: RCREV. NO. 215 OF 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 205

Click here to read/download Order