IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 243 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.26/2010 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM I.A.2365/2010 IN RCP.11/2003 OF THE PRL. RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBHARAYALU, S/O. SANKARA NARAYAN REDDIAR, MURUGA BHAVAN, THAMARAKKULAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- IQBAL RAWOOF SAIT @ NAZEER, S/O. ABDUL RAWOOF, JUNI SAI, 49/325/2 PRA 111/1, PAYATTUKUPPAN LANE, KAMALESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN (CAVEATOR) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1366 OF 2011 IN R.C.R.NO. 243 OF 2011 DISMISSED. 21.6.2011 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.No.243 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 Order Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court, Kollam in I.A.No.2365 of 2010. The above I.A. was filed by the landlord seeking a direction to put the landlord immediately in possession on the ground that the tenant had not complied with one of the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.28 of 2006 for passing an order of remand in that case. The order which was impugned in R.C.A.No.28 of 2006 was an ex parte order of eviction on all the grounds invoked in the R.C.P. The learned Appellate Authority imposed several conditions including the condition that the tenant has to deposit the admitted rent on or before 5th day of every English month in favour of the landlord and if he fails to deposit the rent, he shall surrender the vacant possession of the building RCR 243/11 2 to the landlord-respondent. It appears that in compliance of the above directions, the tenant paid rent promptly upto and inclusive for the month of April, 2010. But he did not pay the rent due for the month of May, 2010 on the due date, i.e., 5th of May, 2010. This was the circumstance under which I.A.No.2365 of 2010 was filed by the landlord. The contention raised by the tenant answering I.A.No.2365 of 2010 was that as the courts were having the mid summer vacation, it was not possible for the tenant to tender the rent for the month of May, 2010 to the counsel for the landlord as was the practice. It was also contended that before the due date itself the amount was tendered, but the counsel was unwilling to receive the amount. Whatever that be, the I.A. was allowed by the Rent Control Court and the learned Appellate Authority by the impugned judgment has confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. In this revision various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Mr.G.Ram Mohan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.C.Rajendran, learned counsel for the respondent addressed us in detail on the basis of the rival contentions raised by their respective parties. RCR 243/11 3 2. Having considered the submissions, we feel that though there was lack of promptness on the part of the tenant in the matter of complying with one of the conditions imposed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority for passing an order of remand in R.C.A.No.28 of 2006, relief can be given to the petitioner imposing further conditions. We are persuaded to feel so as we notice that the merits of the various eviction grounds invoked in the R.C.P. are yet to be adjudicated by the Rent Control Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. 3. It is not disputed before us that the building in question is situated at Chinnakkada which is one of the most important commercial centres in Kollam Corporation. The present contract rent of Rs.1250/- per mensem fixed years ago is undoubtedly far below the rent which the building may fetch if the same is let out today. According to us, tentative refixation of the rent payable by the revision petitioner can be one of the conditions for granting relief to him. So also we feel that the petitioner has to pay a penalty for his failure in complying with the peremptory conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority for passing the remand order at his instance in R.C.A.No.28 of 2006. The result RCR 243/11 4 of the above discussion is therefore as follows: The judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority under appeal will stand set aside and I.A.No.2365 of 2010 will stand dismissed subject to the following conditions: 1. The rent payable by the revision petitioner for the building which is the subject matter of the proceedings will stand refixed with effect from 1.7.2011 at Rs.10,000/- per mensem. Till fair rent of this building is fixed by the Rent Control Court regularly at the instance of either party, the petitioner shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per mensem. 2. The revision petitioner will continue to pay rent at the refixed rate of Rs.10,000/- per mensem on the 5th day of every month without fail. 3. The revision petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost to the respondent either directly or through the respondent's counsel in this court within ten days from today and produce receipt before the Rent Control Court. Once the Rent Control Court notices compliance of the above directions, the court will revive the R.C.P. and will complete the pre-trial steps at the earliest and include the case in the earliest RCR 243/11 5 available special list. The R.C.P. will be tried and early decision will be taken in the R.C.P. touching all the issues. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd RCR 243/11 6