IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 174 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.48/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.103/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM) .................... REV.PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN IA 7147/2009 ------------------------------------------------------------- LATHIPHA RAHMAN, AGED 58 YEARS, BHARATH TUTORIAL COLLEGE OF COMMERCIAL INSTITUTE, W/O.A.A.ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT AELEVAKKATT ZIYAD MANZIL, PIPE LINE ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI- 682 024, KAKKANAD KARA, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT IN IA NO.7147/09 ------------------------------------------ P.GOPALAKRISHNAN @ GOPAN, S/O.P.V.MENON, PALAPPARAMBIL, KANNAMTHODATH LANE EDAPPALLY, KOCHI - 682 024. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2010, ALONG WITH R.C.R.175/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos.174 & 175 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in these revisions is the common order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing separate applications filed by the landlady seeking issuance of a commission in the two Rent Control Appeals. The landlady sought for issuance of a commission mainly for the purpose of substantiating her contention that the landlady had vacant possession of only one room and that there was a special reason for ordering eviction in spite of such possession. The learned District Judge under the impugned common order has referred to Rule 27 of Order 41 CPC and observed that additional evidence can be taken only under the conditions specified under the above Rule of Order 41 CPC and that whether or not additional evidence should be admitted is within the discretion of the Appellate Court. This Court has in many decisions laid down that the power of the Appellate Authority to permit adduction of evidence is almost co-terminus with that of the Rent Control Court in RCR.Nos.174 & 175/2010 2 terms of Section 23 (1) and 18(3) of the Rent Control Act read with Rule 16(2) of the Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted before us that, since the evidence already on record is sufficient for establishing the landlady's position, the grievance of the landlady is only regarding certain observations contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the impugned common order. Paragraph 6 contains an observation that it is admitted by the landlady in the petition that two rooms are lying as vacant. According to the learned counsel, such admission has not been made by the landlady. So also the learned counsel submitted that observations in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, “Here in the petition filed before the Rent Control Court no such ground has been taken by the landlord and it was emerged in evidence that the landlord is in possession of two rooms in the same building, which was found to be one among the reasons of negativing the claim u/s. 11(3). If additional evidence is collected by appointing a commissioner in preparing the RCR.Nos.174 & 175/2010 3 sketch and details of the rooms available and it is considered as additional evidence at the appellate stage that will be amounting to travel the court outside the record of the lower court and indirectly blocking the right of the tenant in adducing evidence to disprove the claim raised by the plaintiff at the appellate stage” are also not fully correct. The learned counsel expressed apprehension that if these observations are allowed to remain, they are likely to prejudice to the mind of the Appellate Authority while taking final decision in the appeals. The learned counsel referred to certain other observations also in paragraph 6 of the order. According to us, the revision petitioner need not have any apprehension that the learned Appellate Authority will be influenced by any of the observations in the impugned common order while taking the final decision in the rent control appeals. The learned Appellate Authority will certainly realise that those observations are made only for the purpose of deciding the interlocutory applications decided under the impugned common order. Those observations will be treated by the Appellate RCR.Nos.174 & 175/2010 4 Authority as provisional observations. The learned Appellate Authority will decide the appeals on the basis of the evidence on record, oral, documentary and circumstantial and take a decision in the appeal having due regard to the appellate power conferred on the Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Statute. Subject to the above observations, we dismiss both the revision petitions. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk