The petitioner filed R.C.P.No.2 of 2012, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Chengannur, against the respondent under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Control Court passed an order in I.A.No.879 of 2013, directing the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent. Stating that the tenant failed to deposit the arrears of rent, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1272 of 2013 under Section 12(3) of the Act. The tenant filed an affidavit dated 11.9.2013 (Exhibit P1) before the Rent Control Court stating that against the order in I.A.No.879 of 2013, he had filed a Rent Control Revision before the High Court, that the High Court opined that the Rent Control Revision is not maintainable. The tenant filed W.P.(C) No.22588 of 2013 and the said Writ Petition was posted after vacation.
2. The petitioner/landlord filed I.A.No.18 of 2014 praying that the tenant filed a false affidavit in the Rent Control Petition and that he did not file W.P.(C) No.22588 of 2013 before the High Court. The petitioner contended that the affidavit containing false averments was filed by the tenant to mislead the Court and to dupe the petitioner and also to protract the case.
3. The respondent/tenant filed I.A.No.2065 of 2013 before the Rent Control Court to allow him to deposit the arrears of rent as per the order in I.A.No.879 of 2013. The Rent Control Court considered I.A.Nos.1272 of 2013 and 2065 of 2013 and passed a common order dated 10th February, 2014, allowing I.A.No.1272 of 2013 filed by the petitioner/landlord and dismissing I.A.No.2065 of 2013 filed by the respondent/ tenant. On the same day, the Rent Control Court closed I.A.No.18 of 2014 filed by the landlord on the ground that all further proceedings in R.C.P.No.2 of 2012 were stopped by a separate order.
4. The proceedings in R.C.P.No.2 of 2012 were stopped under Section 12(3) of the Act on the application filed by the petitioner/landlord. That has nothing to do with the relief prayed for in I.A.No.18 of 2014. Even if the Rent Control Petition is disposed of, the Rent Control Court would be entitled to deal with I.A.No.18 of 2014. We are of the view that the Rent Control Court should have disposed of I.A.No.18 of 2014 on the merits.
Accordingly, we allow this O.P.(R.C.) and set aside the order dated 10th February, 2014 in I.A.No.18 of 2014. The Rent Control Court shall dispose of I.A.No.18 of 2014 on the merits.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE