The Kerala High Court has held that tenant is not entitled to seek injunction from eviction without performing his obligation to pay the rent. The Court emphasized that tenants seeking equitable relief, such as an injunction against eviction, must first ensure that rent is paid up to date, thereby aligning with the principle of “he who seeks equity must do equity.” The Single-Judge Bench of Justice C Jayachandran clarified that tenants who fail to pay rent cannot expect the Court to provide an injunction allowing them to stay on rented premises without fulfilling their payment obligations. Granting such relief, the Court reasoned, would contravene the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act by effectively allowing tenants to occupy property without compensating the landlord. “A tenant is not entitled to seek injunction from eviction without performing his obligation to pay the rent,” the Single-Judge stated, adding that the failure to pay rent removes the tenant’s right to seek equitable remedies.
However, the Court stressed that this does not permit landlords to take matters into their own hands by forcibly evicting tenants who default on rent. The ruling also reinforced the authority of civil courts to strike off a tenant’s defense in an eviction case if the tenant fails to comply with court orders to deposit arrears of rent. The High Court noted that this power can be invoked under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), allowing the courts to prevent prolonged litigation caused by tenants’ lapses and to ensure justice is done efficiently. To create uniformity in handling tenancy disputes, the Kerala High Court laid down the following guidelines:
1. Tenants seeking an injunction must submit an affidavit confirming that rent has been paid up to the month prior to the filing of the injunction application. If rent has not been paid, they must provide a reasonable explanation for the non-payment.
2. In cases of non-payment, the court will consider the tenant’s justification liberally, ensuring fair evaluation.
3. If the landlord demonstrates that rent is outstanding, the court will order the tenant to deposit the arrears within a specified timeframe.
4. Civil courts will adhere to Section 12 of the Rent Control Act and relevant judicial precedents when determining matters related to rent payment.
5. If the tenant deposits the arrears and agrees to continue paying rent, the interim injunction against eviction will remain in place.
6. Failure to deposit rent within the required timeframe will result in the dismissal of the injunction order, although the court may extend the deadline for payment under certain circumstances.
7. If rent is deposited following an extension, the injunction will be reinstated, conditional on the tenant’s continued adherence to future payment obligations.
8. Should the tenant fail to deposit rent even within the extended time, the court may strike off the tenant’s defense under Section 151 of the CPC. The Court directed the Registrar General to present the judgment to the Rule Committee of the Kerala High Court for possible amendments to formalize the procedure allowing the striking off of a tenant’s defence if they fail to deposit rent as ordered. “The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to serve a copy of this judgment to all civil courts of the State for necessary guidance and compliance. The Registrar General is also directed to place the judgment before the Rule Committee of the High Court to consider whether necessary State amendment – in accord with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana etc – has to be made to the Code of Civil Procedure enabling striking off defense, in cases where the tenant fails to pay/deposit the rent, even after the court directing the same to be done within a time frame,” the Court ordered.
The observations were given by the Court while considering three petitions: two filed by tenants challenging interim orders to deposit arrears of rent, and one filed by a landlord dissatisfied with the civil court’s rejection of his application to compel the tenant to deposit rent arrears. The Court ultimately remitted all three cases back to the trial court for reconsideration. “. the impugned orders in all the three Original Petitions are hereby set aside. The matters are remitted back to the trial court to reconsider the interlocutory application/s afresh, in the light of the law laid down above and to pass necessary orders therein, in accordance with law,” the Bench ordered.
Source: verdictum.in