IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 80 of 2011() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2011 IN IA 406/09 IN RCA.18/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KALPETTA RCP.28/2004 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, SULTHAN BATHERI .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS (S): -------------------- 1. THANKA @ THANKAMMA, W/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, ELUPPARAMBIL VEEDU, MANALVAYAL POST, IRULAM. 2. PRASAD, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, ELUPPARAMBIL VEEDU, MANALVAYAL POST, IRULAM. 3. PRADEEP, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, ELUPPARAMBIL VEEDU, MANALVAYAL POST, IRULAM. 4. PRADOSH, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, ELUPPARAMBIL VEEDU, MANALVAYAL POST, IRULAM. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- SANKARAN, S/O. KESAVAN, AALAKADAVIL VEEDU, PANDALATTUKUNNU, PULPALLY AMSOM DESOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 529. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SRI.TITUS MANI THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 80 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is an order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that " struck off" the contention of the revision petitioner tenant on the reason that the entire arrears of rent as directed by the Appellate Authority was not paid despite several postings given. 2. According to Thomas Antony, learned counsel for the landlord inclusive of the rent for the month of June 2011 a sum of Rs.2700/- will be due to the landlord. According to Smt.Celine Joseph learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the rent due as of now will be only Rs.900/- for the months of April, May and June. The correctness of this submission can be examined by the Rent Control Appellate Authority later. We notice that the petitioners have not been prompt or regular in the matter of paying the rent that falls due in respect of the building in question. We are inclined to grant them relief only RCR.No.80/2011 2 on condition that they make immediate payment of the rent alleged by the landlord to be due from them. Hence, this revision petition is being disposed of by passing the following orders; i). The order dated 12/1/2011 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta in I.A. No. 406/2009 in RCA No.18/2007 will stand set aside and the RCA will stand posted before the Appellate Authority for hearing and disposal on merits provided following conditions are satisfied by the petitioners; ii). The petitioners pay a sum of Rs.2,700/- to the respondent either directly or through his advocate of this court within two weeks from today towards the rent alleged by the landlord to be due in respect of the building. iii). The petitioners pay a sum of Rs.2,300/- as costs to the respondent in the same manner within the same time limit. iv). If the learned Appellate Authority notices receipt against the payment of the two amounts mentioned above, the learned Appellate Authority will post RCA No.18/2007 for consideration on merits and dispose of the above RCA in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within one RCR.No.80/2011 3 month of noticing the receipts. If payments are not made as ordered above, the impugned order will stand confirmed. It is needless to point out that upon the impugned order being confirmed, the learned Appellate Authority will have to pass formal orders rejecting the appeal. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk