IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 80 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.152/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA RCP.28/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM .................... REVN.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- PUVULLATHIL GOPALAN S/O. KANNAN, AGED 51, RESHMA HOTEL, VILATHAPURAM AMSOM, MUTHUVADATHUR DESOM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------- 1. C.M.JANAKI W/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 59, UMA, PURAMERI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. DAUGHTER DEEPA N.NAIR, ADVOCATE, UMA, PURAMERI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL FOR R1 & R2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R .No.80 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. A tenant is in revision against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority by which that authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court in a rent control petition on the ground of arrears of rent and passed an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b). The bone of contention between of the landlord and the tenant was the rate of rent payable. The landlord contended that the rate of rent is Rs. 750/- per month on the basis of a fair rent decree passed by a civil court in O.S.No.60/2003 of the Munsiff's Court, Nadapuram. The said decree has not become final and is presently pending in appeal at the instance of the tenant in A.S.No.11/04 on the files of the Sub Court, Vadakara. The argument which was mainly raised before the Appellate Authority on behalf of the tenant was that the judgment of a Division Bench of this court on the basis of which the civil court entertained the suit and fixed fair rent has been stayed by the Supreme Court. Further RCR.No.80/09 2 argument was that the decree in O.S.No.60/03 itself is subject to appeal. Both the arguments were repelled by the rent control appellate authority. According to that authority, so long as the judgment of this court has not been set aside by the Supreme Court, the same is binding on the learned Munsiff. It was also found that the appellate court in A.S.No.11/04 did not become inclined to stay the operation of the decree which was impugned in the appeal. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.C.P.Mohammed Nias, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.Zubair Pulikool, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.Mohammed Nias would very forcefully argue that the decree of the civil court in O.S.No.60/03 is a nullity since the very judgment of this court on the basis of which the suit was entertained and decree was passed does not operate in view of the order of stay passed by the Apex Court. Sri.Subair would oppose the submissions of Sri.Mohammed Nias and submit that the judgment of this court reviewing the earlier judgment in Issac Ninan's case has not been set aside by the Supreme Court. He also highlighted that the appellate court in A.S.No.11/04 did not RCR.No.80/09 3 become inclined to stay the operation of the decree in O.S.No.60/03. 3. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We find it difficult to accept the submission of Sri.Mohammed Nias that the decree in O.S.No.60/03 is a nullity. Till the same is not set aside by the court of appeal in A.S.No.11/04 or atleast so long as the judgment of this court reviewing the original judgment in Issac Ninan's case is not set aside by the Supreme Court, the decree in O.S.No.60/03 is binding on the parties and the Rent Control Court. At the same time, we notice some merit in the submission of Sri.Mohammed Nias that appropriate provisions should be made in our judgment so that in the event of the decision in A.S.No.11/04 or that of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed against the judgment of this court reviewing the judgment in Issac Ninan's case coming in favour of the tenants, the petitioner's interest is protected. 4. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the RCR itself can be disposed of issuing the following directions; The judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is confirmed without prejudice to the contentions of the revision RCR.No.80/09 4 petitioner in A.S.No.11/04 and the benefits to which the revision petitioner may become eligible on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the SLP filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of this court reviewing the judgment in Issac Ninan's case. In view of the above directions, we grant six month's time from today to the revision petitioner to apply under Section 11(2)(c), if it becomes necessary for getting the order of eviction set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vadakara is directed to give top priority to A.S.No.11/04 and dispose of that appeal in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.80/09 5