IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 RCRev..No. 2 of 2010(A) ---------------------------- RCA.9/2009 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.19/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------- BIJI A. KURUVILA, S/O. KURUVILA, ANACHIRA HOUSE, KUROOR KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHA, W/O. LATE SASI, THOTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, AYAKKAD KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. 2. SARANYA, D/O. LATE SASI, THOTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, AYAKAD KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R1 & 2 SRI.PRASANTH M.P FOR R1 & 2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.2 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority under which that Authority has confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court allowing application under Section 11(2)(c). The contention which was seriously raised before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority was that the deposit as well as the application was not made on time. The Appellate Authority noticed that the application was not made within 30 days of the final eviction order passed by this Court. However, the Appellate Authority found that it was R. C. R. No.2 of 2010 -2- on a wrong advice received by the party that he need file application only within 30 days of obtaining certified copy of the judgment that the delay was occasioned. 2. Having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we are unable to agree with the learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner that the judgment suffers from infirmity as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned senior counsel further submitted that the court has not considered the contention of the revision petitioner that the amount deposited was deficient. 3. We have gone through the statement of R. C. R. No.2 of 2010 -3- objections filed. We do not find any specific contention raised regarding the correctness of the amount deposited. Of course, we notice merit in the submission that the tenant was obliged to deposit interest also at the rate of 6%. Calculating the interest due on the rent in arrears in a systematic manner the amount will come to Rs.500/-. We are therefore, inclined to sustain the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority only by imposing a condition that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the revision petitioner towards interest on the rent in arrears. 4. We also notice that the building in question is situated in an important locality of Kothamangalam Municipal Town. According to us, the rent of Rs.850/- per mensem fixed long ago is R. C. R. No.2 of 2010 -4- below the rent that the building may fetch if the building is let out now. We tentatively re-fix rent payable by the respondent at Rs.1,200/- per mensem. It is open to either party to move the Rent Control Court by filing appropriate application under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent. Till such time as fair rent is fixed, the respondent will pay rent at Rs.1,200/- per mensem. We make it clear that our order re-fixing the rent will become operative with effect from 1st November, 2010. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-