IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 RCRev..No. 211 of 2007(A) ------------------------------ RCA.11/2004 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.41/2002 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- MANIKUTTY,S/O.MADHAVAN MOOTHAN, MANI'S OIL SHOP, NO. 43/511, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- M.SHAHUL HAMEED,S/O.MUTHU RAWTHER, RESIDING AT RAJEENA MANZIL, PATTANI STREET, PALAKKAD. ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.211 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenant is the judgment of the Appellate Authority modifying the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(b) finding that the contract rent is not Rs.400/- as was held by the Rent Control Court, but is Rs.1,000/- per mensem as contended by the landlord. We have scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court. We find that unlike the Rent Control Court, the evidence on record which consisted of oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 Exts.A1 R. C. R. No.211 of 2007 -2- to A7 series, DW1, B1 to B4 and Exts.X1 to X13 has been meticulously analysed by the learned Appellate Authority. We are convinced that the finding entered by the learned Appellate Authority that the contract rent is Rs.1,000/- per mensem as contended by the landlord is a finding entered on the basis of acceptable legal evidence. The building has an area of about 700 sq. ft. and is situated in the Big Bazaar in Palakkad town. The contract rent of Rs.400/- per mensem was fixed as per Ext.A1 way back in 1986. The case of the landlord was that Rs.400/- was enhanced to Rs.800/- and thereafter to Rs.1,000/- per mensem. The above case was sought to be established by the landlord by the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 apart from documents which consisted also of Ext.X1 series. We are in agreement with R. C. R. No.211 of 2007 -3- the learned Appellate Authority that the version of the landlord is much more probable and than that of the tenant. At any rate, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the Appellate Authority attracting Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. Revision necessarily will have to fail and will stand dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. It is needless to mention that the petitioner will have six weeks time from today to get the order of eviction vacated by making requisite deposits and filing applications under Section 11(2)(c). PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-