IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No. 120 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.163/2006 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.63/2006 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. P.H.PRADEEP, AGED 40 YEARS, S/.HARIDASAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 5/22A, `RITA', ERANHIPALAM P.O., KATCHERI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. P.ANIL KRISHNAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, `SHOBHA', BHAJANAKOVIL ROAD, P.O.CHALAPPURAM, KASABA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SMT.SUSAN JACOB RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.CITY TOWER (REGD.FIRM), REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER N.K.IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KASABA AMSOM AND KARIAKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN FOR R1 SRI.P.A.HARISH FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 121 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos.120 & 121/2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Since the issue arising in both these revision petitions are common and the parties are also same, we are inclined to dispose of these revision petitions by a common judgment. The tenants are in revision and they impugn orders of eviction concurrently passed against them on the ground of own occupation. The need projected by the respondent landlord, a partnership firm, was that one of their partners need to occupy the building in question for the purpose of starting a hotel. Even though statement of objections were filed, when the RCP was listed for trial, the revision petitioners did not participate in the trial and ultimately the order of eviction was passed against the revision petitioners virtually in their absence. Even though medical certificates were produced before the rent control appellate authority explaining the absence of the tenants at trial, the appellate authority did not become inclined to accept RCR.No.120 &12/2009 2 the medical certificates. The appellate authority thought that dilatory tactics were being employed by the revision petitioners. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Manjeri S.Sunder Raj, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and those of Sri. V.V.Surendran, learned counsel for the respondent landlord. Sri.Manjeri S.Sunder Raj would earnestly appeal for an order of remand. The learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioners are prepared to abide by any condition, which may be imposed by this court, for ordering eviction. Sri.V.V.Surendran would support the impugned judgments. According to him dilatory tactics have been adopted by the revision petitioners and order of remand is likely to result in further delay. 3. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions, we are in agreement with Sri.V.V.Surendran that atleast to a certain extent dilatory tactics have been employed by the revision petitioners for protracting the trial of the rent control petitions. However, we notice that the decision of the rent control court, as confirmed by the appellate authority, to order eviction on the ground of bonafide own occupation, is not the result of an adjudication in which the revision petitioners tenants had RCR.No.120 &12/2009 3 participated. On that reason alone, we are inclined to set aside the judgment of the rent control appellate authority as well as the order of the rent control court and remand both these RCPs to the rent control court. We are, however, inclined to do so only on imposing strict conditions. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are disposed of issuing the following directions: 1). Orders of eviction passed by the rent control court and the appellate authority under Section 11 (3) are set aside on the following conditions; i). The contract rents payable monthly by the revision petitioners in respect of the buildings which are subject matter of RCP Nos. 63/2006 & 64/2006 are tentatively refixed at Rs.3500/- per mensum with effect from first September 2009. The revision petitioners shall pay the rent at that rate from that date. This tentative refixation is without prejudice to the right of either party to move the RCR.No.120 &12/2009 4 competent court for fixation of rent. ii). The revision petitioners shall pay a consolidated amount of Rs.3000/- as costs to the respondent through his advocate in this court. The revision petitioners shall pay consolidated further amount of Rs.1,000/- to the Kerala Mediation Centre. Iii). Amounts as ordered above shall be paid within two weeks from today. 2). The order of remand will become operative only if the amount as ordered above is paid. Once the order of remand becomes operative, both the rent control petitions will go back to the rent control court. That court will post the RCPs for trial in the earliest available special list, if necessary, by publishing additional special list for that purpose. Trial of the cases will be taken up on day today basis and the rent control court will pass revised judgment after completing the trial at the earliest and at any rate within one month of commencement of trial. RCR.No.120 &12/2009 5 The RCRs will stand disposed of, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk An amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) is paid to counsel for respondent as costs by the counsel for petitioner – vide memo filed on 12/08/2009 and an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) is paid to the Kerala Mediation Centre vide receipt dated 12/8/2009 in compliance of the order dated 31/7/2009 in RCR 120/08 and RCR 121/2009. Registrar (Judicial).