IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 RCRev..No. 149 of 2003(E) ------------------------- RCA.93/2000 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR RCOP.53/1998 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------------------- ANTONY, S/O. MANJILA VARUNNI, THALOOR DESOM, THRIKKUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV.SMT.BEENA ZUZANNE THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- BIJOY, S/O. MOOKKAN JOHNY, HOUSE NO.VIII/375, THRISSUR TOWN. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH(SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.11.2009 , THE COURT ON 19/11/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.C.Rev. No. 149 of 2003 E ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The landlord is in revision. He sought to evict the respondent on the ground of arrears of rent. The respondent denied the title of the landlord. The rent control court, after enquiry, found that the denial of title is bonafide and relegated the parties to the civil court. Though the landlord preferred appeal to the appellate authority, the appellate authority also agreed with the conclusions of the rent control court. Today, when the case is taken up, on behalf of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it was submitted that RFA.No.42/2008 filed by the landlord against the judgment of the civil court deciding the issue regarding title over the building is pending and hence this R.C.R. be adjourned till the RFA is disposed of. We do not think it is necessary to wait till the RFA preferred against the judgment of the civil court is decided. It was only on the ground of arrears of rent that the revision petitioner sought to evict the respondent. RCR.149/2003 : 2 : The best that could have been aspired for by the revision petitioner was an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) which is always liable to be got vacated by the tenant if he makes requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). In the instant case, we decline to interfere with the judgment of the appellate authority, however, making it clear that the judgment of the appellate authority will be subject to the decision to be taken by this Court in RFA No.42/2008. If the judgment in that RFA comes to be in favour of the revision petitioner, it is always open to him to apply for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease & Rent Control) Act or any other sub-section of Section 11. The Rent Control Revision is dismissed. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks RCR.149/2003 : 3 : PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ```````````````````````````````````````````````` R.C.Rev. No. 149 of 2003 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````` O R D E R 19th day of November, 2009