IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 230 of 2010(B) ------------------------ RCA.134/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.172/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ K.P.SANJEEV KUMAR, AGED 33, S/O.ASHOK KUMAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.FABRICS INDIA EXPORTS PVT.LTD.,PRESTIGE CENTRE (GROUND FLOOR), KARAYATH DAMODARAN ROAD, P.O.CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670 002, KANNUR AMSOM, KANNURKARA DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ PALLACKAN PUTHIYA PURAYIL HASEENA, W/O.M.HAMSA, AGED 41 YEARS, HARSHA, ACHARATH ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND FATHER MR.V.K.MOOSA KUTTY, S/O.LATE EBRAHIM, AGED 67, BUSINESS, HARSHA, ACHARATH ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 102, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.230 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 O R D E R ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 is a summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority invoking the powers under Section 12(3) of Act 2 of 1965. The learned Appellate Authority directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,58,000/-, which was found to be the arrears of rent admitted, on or before 18.5.2010 or to show sufficient cause for not complying with the direction. It seems that on 18.5.2010 when the case was called, there was no effective representation for the revision petitioner. Learned Appellate Authority therefore passed the impugned summary order of eviction on the reason that the tenant has neither paid the admitted rent nor shown any cause against passage R.C.R.230/10 2 of summary order of eviction. 2. In this revision, various grounds are raised assailing the order of the Appellate Authority. Sri. Sunil Nair Palakkat, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed strenuous arguments before us on the basis of the grounds. He submitted that the father of the revision petitioner was on his deathbed from the first week of April 2000 and he breathed his last on 11.4.2000. Thereafter the revision petitioner was performing the obsequies for the departed soul and also attending to domestic chores as the entire family was in grief and the family scene was one of utter confusion. The learned counsel submitted that subsequent to the impugned order, the entire amount ordered by the learned Appellate Authority has been paid. He requested that the impugned order be vacated noticing the subsequent payments. 3. Sri.M.Mohamed Mustaque, learned counsel for R.C.R.230/10 3 the respondent landlord does not agree. Mr. Mustaque submitted that there is a provision in the contract that the rent will stand enhanced from Rs.7,000/- per mensem to Rs.8,050/-. The above provision has become operative with effect from 22.1.2007. As the contract is not disputed, the petitioner is bound to pay rent at that rate as the admitted rent. He also argued that unlike orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b), summary orders under Section 12(3) cannot be vacated on the basis of deposits made subsequently. 4. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the bar we find merit in the submissions of Mr.Mustaque that a summary order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) is not liable to be vacated on the basis of deposits made subsequently. At the same time it is not disputed before us that the father of the revision petitioner was on his deathbed from the first week of April 2000 and he passed away on 11.4.2000. The R.C.R.230/10 4 submission of Mr.Sunil Nair that the revision petitioner was performing obsequies for his departed father and that the family was in a mess due to the unexpected demise of the father, is not disputed. We feel that the revision petitioner had sufficient reason for not complying with the direction passed by the learned Appellate Authority on 29.3.2010. At the same time the revision petitioner could have made some arrangements before the learned Appellate Authority for making proper representations. He did not do so. We are therefore inclined to grant relief to the revision petitioner only by imposing strict conditions. 5. As rightly submitted by Mr.Mustaque, going by the terms of the contract the revision petitioner is liable to pay rent at Rs.8,050/- per mensem since 22.1.2007. The contract is not disputed. It will therefore have to be taken that admitted rent will include rent for the period subsequent to 22.1.2007 at the enhanced rate of R.C.R.230/10 5 Rs.8,050/-. Therefore we are of the view that apart from the amount already paid by the revision petitioner, he will have to pay further amount of Rs.45,150/- (Rupees Forty five thousand one hundred and fifty only) being rent for the period from 22.1.2007 till 22.8.2010 (calculated at the rate of Rs.8,050/- as against the rate of Rs.7,000/- per mensem paid by the revision petitioner). As already stated, there was some negligence on the part of the revision petitioner in not making arrangements for making proper representation before the Appellate Authority on 18.5.2010. In view of the stand taken by the counsel for the respondent that if the building is let out today, it will fetch at least Rs.10,000/- per mensem, we are inclined to re-fix the rent payable by the revision petitioner for the building in question prospectively with effect from 1.9.2010 at Rs.10,000/- per mensem. Though the re-fixation is being made as a condition for the relief that is being given to the revision petitioner, we make it R.C.R.230/10 6 clear that if the revision petitioner is aggrieved by re- fixation, he is free to move the Rent Control Court by filing appropriate application under Section 5. Result of the above discussion is as follows: The impugned order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(b) (which was impugned before the Appellate Authority) will stand set aside and R.C.P.No.172/2007 will go back to the Rent Control Court, Kannur subject to the following conditions: 1. Revision petitioner pays within one month from today to the respondent either directly or through the respondent's counsel, either in this court or in the Rent Control Court, a sum of Rs.45,150/- (Rupees Forty five thousand one hundred and fifty only) towards the rent in arrears. 2. The rent payable by the revision petitioner will stand R.C.R.230/10 7 prospectively re-fixed with effect from 1.9.2010 at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) per mensem. The receipts against payment of the amount ordered above will be produced before the Rent Control Court. Once that court notices the receipt, the Rent Control Petition will be posted in the special list for trial and will be tried and disposed of in accordance with law. We make it clear that if the conditions imposed herein are not complied with, the order impugned herein will stand confirmed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb