- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- Tenant Who Hasn't Paid Rent Can't...
Tenant Who Hasn't Paid Rent Can't Seek Protection From Eviction : Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
27 Sept 2024 12:32 PM IST
The Kerala High Court has held that a tenant, who has failed to pay rent, cannot seek protection from the Court against eviction proceedings.Calling it a "disquieting litigative trend", Single bench of Justice C. Jayachandran held that a Landlord is the paramount title holder of the tenanted premises and the tenant's right to occupy the same is wholly dependent on his obligation to pay...
The Kerala High Court has held that a tenant, who has failed to pay rent, cannot seek protection from the Court against eviction proceedings.
Calling it a "disquieting litigative trend", Single bench of Justice C. Jayachandran held that a Landlord is the paramount title holder of the tenanted premises and the tenant's right to occupy the same is wholly dependent on his obligation to pay the rent.
It added that allowing a tenant to continue proceedings against eviction will not only be oppressive but amount to harassment of the landlord, who will be forced to bear a tenant, without receiving rent.
It observed,
"If the tenant choose to approach a court of law, that too seeking an equitable relief of protection from eviction, without performing the above vital obligation, is not such a proceeding an abuse of the process of the court? Will it not amount to improper use and perversion of the process of the court? Will not the adversary/tenant, through unfounded use of a legal proceeding, obtain an unfair advantage over his opponent/landlord? Is not such a proceeding - wholly bereft of any bonafides - oppressive and vexatious and liable to be aborted to prevent miscarriage of justice?"
The Court however added that this does not mean that the landlord can evict the tenant otherwise than by process recognised by law.
Court thus issued the following directions:
-The tenant, who approaches a court seeking injunction from forcible eviction shall swear to an affidavit - to be submitted along with the plaint - stating that the agreed rent, which falls due up to the month previous to the month of filing has been paid to the landlord and that he will continue to do so, pending the litigation. This has to be followed even in cases where the tenant enters as a defendant and applies for injunction from forcible eviction.
-In case, the rent is not being paid, the tenant/plaintiff shall explain in the affidavit the reasons justifying such non-payment.
-In cases where the tenant has submitted the sworn affidavit that the rent is being paid regularly, the courts shall generally grant an ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction restraining eviction. If the affidavit says that the rent is not paid regularly, the Court shall examine the reasons and order accordingly.
-Upon the defendant/landlord entering appearance, if it is shown that the agreed rent has not been paid - contrary to the affidavit sworn to by the plaintiff/tenant - the court, after hearing the parties, and on being satisfied of the same, will issue an order directing the tenant/plaintiff to deposit the arrears of rent, within a time frame fixed by the court.
-If the plaintiff/tenant deposits such arrears of rent, along with an undertaking to continue to pay/deposit further rent pending litigation, the interim order of injunction shall be made absolute till the final disposal of the case
-However, if the tenant/plaintiff fails to make such deposit, the interim order of injunction shall be vacated at the first instance and court shall grant further time to the tenant to deposit such arrears.
- If within the given time, the arrears are paid, the injunction order shall revive on the condition that the tenant undertakes to pay future rent as well.
- However, if the arrears are not paid within the given time, the pleading shall be struck off.
The Court added that these are general guidelines and court can deviate from these if the individual facts and circumstances require so.
Advocate Jacob P. Alex assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates Sajan Varghese K., Liju M. P., Jophy Pothen Kandankary
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Sarath M. S., B. Premnath
Case No: OP (C) No. 2307 of 2022
Case Title: Pramod v The Secretary, The Sultanpet Diocese Society and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
