The Kerala High Court recently held that tenants cannot seek relief against eviction by their landlord without fulfilling their legal obligation to pay rent [Pramod v The Secretary & anr and connected cases].
The Court also issued guidelines to ensure uniformity in handling tenancy disputes and to ensure that tenants discharge their rent obligations while pursuing legal remedies against eviction.
Justice C Jayachandran emphasised that tenants cannot claim the equitable and discretionary relief of an injunction against eviction unless they fulfil their obligation of paying rent to the landlord.
In this regard, the Court cited the principle of 'he who seeks equity must do equity.'
The Court reasoned that if a tenant who does not may rent is granted an injunction, it would amount to recognising a right to continue in rented premises without payment of any rent, which would violate the Transfer of Property Act.
"A tenant is not entitled to seek injunction from eviction without performing his obligation to pay the rent," the Court concluded.
The Court added that this does not mean that a landlord can take the law into his own hands and forcibly evict a tenant by citing a failure to pay rent.
"The court only discounts the right of the plaintiff/tenant, to maintain a suit, seeking an equitable and discretionary relief, for failure on his part to perform his legal and salutary obligation. This Court does not, for a moment, sanction the eviction of a tenant by the landlord taking law into his hands," it said.
The High Court also held that civil courts are empowered to strike off a tenant's defence/ pleadings in an eviction case if the tenant fails to fulfil his rent obligations or obey court directions to deposit arrears of rent.
This can be done by invoking a civil court's inherent powers to do complete justice under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The High Court reasoned that this may be required to cut short litigation that is rendered impossible to continue due to the tenant's lapses, thereby saving the court's time and curbing harassment of the landlord.
The Court proceeded to issue the following guidelines on pursuing tenancy and eviction cases:
i. Tenants seeking an injunction must submit an affidavit stating that rent due until the month prior to filing an injunction application has been paid. If not, they must explain the non-payment.
ii. In cases of non-payment of rent, the court will evaluate the tenant’s justification liberally.
iii. If the landlord shows that rent hasn’t been paid, the court will order the tenant to deposit arrears within a specified timeframe.
iv. Civil courts will follow Section 12 of the Rent Control Act and relevant judicial precedents in determining rent payment.
v. If the tenant deposits arrears and promises to continue paying rent, the interim injunction will be upheld.
vi. Failure to deposit rent will lead to the dismissal of the injunction order, though the court may grant additional time for payment.
vii. If rent is deposited, the injunction will be reinstated which will be contingent on future payments.
viii. Failure to deposit rent within the extended time may lead to pleadings being struck off under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The Court also directed the Registrar General to present this judgment to the Rule Committee of the High Court for possible amendments, to allow the striking off of a tenant's defence before the civil court if the tenant fails to pay or deposit rent as directed.
The Court passed the common order while considering three petitions. Two were filed by two tenants who challenged an interim order to deposit arrears of rent, in an eviction case initiated by their landlord.
The third petition was filed by a landlord aggrieved by a civil court's rejection of his application for the deposit of rent arrears by his tenant.
The Court eventually remitted all three matters back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
Advocates Sarath MS and B Premnath represented the landlords in the first two petitions, while Advocates Sajan Varghese K, Liju MP, and Jophy Pothen Kandankary represented the tenants.
In the third petition, the landlords were represented by advocates PG Jayashankar, PK Reshma (Kalarickal), S Rajeev, Sajana VH, Shiju George, and Aadersh RS Panicker, while John Nellimala Sarai and Mohammed Sagheer appeared for the tenant.
Advocate Jacob P Alex assisted the Court as an Amicus Curiae.
[Read Judgment]