IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 RCRev..No. 9 of 2009(C) ----------------------- RCA.35/2004 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.285/2002 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------- POOVATHUR DHANARAJ, S/O.RAGHAVAN, POOVATHUR HOUSE, BUSINESSMAN, THANA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. B.SHAMEENA, D/O.NALAKATH ABDUL MAJEED, RESIDING AT KANNUR AMSOM URUVACHAL WARD, KANNUR. 2. K.ANWAR SADATH, S/O.EBRAHIM, KOTTAKANDY HOUSE, P.O.KADALAI, KANNUR. 3. SHAMSUDHEEN C.J., S/O.AHAMMED, CHERIYANDI KURUVA, P.O.KADALAI, KANNUR. 7. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R1 SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.9 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Building(Lease and Rent Control) Act(Act 2 of 1965), the tenant impugns the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in I.A. No.970/2006, which was an application under Section 12 of the Act filed by the landlord, and the consequential order passed in the appeal. In I.A. No.970/2006, the rent control appellate authority directed the tenant to pay the entire rent admitted to be in arrears and also the rent which has fallen due subsequently. The revision petitioner did not comply with that order. He was given time to show cause against the summary order of eviction. No cause was shown. Accordingly, I.A. was allowed and summary order was passed stopping all the proceedings in the appeal and directing the revision petitioner to put the landlord possession of the building immediately. Following the order in that I.A., the appeal also has been disposed of by passing a similar order of summary eviction. Considering the very persuasive submissions of Sri.Gopakumar G., learned counsel for the petitioner, we became R.C.R..No.9/2009 2 inclined to order notice on admission to the respondents by special messenger. Despite service of such notice, the respondents have not entered appearance before this court for resisting the prayers in the Revision Petition. 2. We have heard Sri.Gopakumar.G, learned counsel for the petitioner extensively. Despite his submissions, we are not persuaded to hold that the orders impugned in this revision petition viz. the order in the application under Section 12 as well as the order in the appeal are vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 20. But, our attention was drawn by Sri.Gopakumar to a challan receipt dated 8/7/2004 against the remittance of a sum of Rs.9,200/- by the revision petitioner towards the rent arrears in this case. Sri.Gopakumar would argue that the said deposit covers the entire admitted arrears due as on that date. We are not in a position to accept the argument that sum of Rs.9,200/- was deposited in full settlement of the liability towards the admitted arrears of rent as on that date. But, we are convinced that so much of amount was paid on that date. As already indicated, the respondents landlords appear to be not very keen in contesting this revision petition. An order of R.C.R..No.9/2009 3 eviction passed under section 12 (3) whether it by the rent control court or by the appellate authority is not liable to be vacated by making deposits unlike order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2) (b). However, in the circumstances of this case, we feel that the orders impugned in this revision petition can be vacated on condition that the appellant pays the entire arrears of rent allegedly due in respect of the building till 30/1/2009, which we quantify as Rs.34,000/- being the rent for 85 months deducting sum of Rs.9,200/- paid as referred to above. The balance comes to Rs.24,800/- exclusive of statutory interest at the rate of 6% p.a. which the landlord may be entitled in terms of section 11 (2). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted before us that the entire amount alleged is not actually due and that towards the alleged arrears, more remittances have already been made. This is a question, which can be considered by the rent control appellate authority in the appeal. But, since we are interfering with the impugned orders despite our finding that the impugned orders are not vitiated by any infirmity warranting correction under section 20, by way of indulgence and in view of the circumstance that there is no contest by the landlord, the revision petitioner has to pay the R.C.R..No.9/2009 4 sum of Rs.24,800/- as a condition for getting relief. 3. The result is that the impugned orders passed by the rent control appellate authority, Thalassery in I.A. No.970/2006 in R.C.A. No.35/2004 and the final judgment in R.C.A. No.35/2004 will stand set aside on condition that the revision petitioner pays a sum of Rs.24,800/-(Twenty Four Thousand Eight Hundred only) to the respondent either directly or through their advocate in the court below within three weeks from today. If the rent control appellate authority notices receipt against payment of so much of amounts, that authority will restore the R.C.A. and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after hearing both sides. Needless to mention that the question as to the quantum of arrears correctly due from the revision petitioner will also be decided in the appeal, which is directed also against the order of eviction under section 11 (2). The Rent Control Petition is allowed as above. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk