IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 RCRev..No. 66 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.67/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE RCP.111/2005 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: -------------------- P.MOIDEENKOYA, S/O. MUHAMMED, ASST. NO.7/14 M, MANANCHIRA TOWERS, NAGARAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.GEORGE THOMAS RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------- P.P.MOOSAKOYA, S/O. C.A. UMMER KOYA, ' MARIYA NIVAS' P.O. CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE, KASABA AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.66 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act, the tenant challenges an order of eviction passed by the rent control appellate authority under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 in reversal of the order of the rent control court declining eviction. It will be noticed at once that the orders of eviction under Section 11(2)(b), unlike eviction orders under other sub sections of Section 11, are only tentative or provisional orders, since they are liable to be cancelled by the rent control court on making requisite deposits. Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would address very strenuous and extensive submissions before us on the basis of the various grounds raised in the rent control revision memo. The learned counsel would place strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Municipal Council Udaipur v. Mahendra Kumar (AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2507). According to him, it is clear that clause 8 of Ext.A4 lease deed will not R.C.R..No.66/2009 2 enable the landlord to unilaterally increase the prevailing rent by 15% on expiry of a period of three years in the absence of an agreement between the parties to extend the period of lease. The submission of the learned counsel notwithstanding, we are of the view that there is no warrant for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 in interfering with the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts. 2. We have gone through Ext.A4 lease deed. The first sentence in clause (8) of Ext. A-4 is quoted as follows: “The period of this lease shall be for a period of 11 months from 1-11-1998 which can be extended for further period or periods by the mutual consent of the parties.” It is provided under the same clause that in case the period is extended beyond the period of three years, the tenant shall be liable to pay the rent increased at the rate of 15% to the existing rent and that in that way the rent will stand enhanced by 15% automatically. The argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that in the absence of a written agreement R.C.R..No.66/2009 3 between the landlord and the tenant extending the period of lease on the expiry of the period fixed under Ext.A4, clause (8) cannot operate. We cannot agree. Clause (8), according to us, does not insist on any written agreement between the parties extending the period of lease upon expiry of the original period of 11 months fixed under Ext.A4. Ext.A4 only says that period can be extended by mutual consent. It is obvious and apparent that the tenant, who has been allowed to continue in possession as a tenant after the expiry of 11 months fixed under Ext.A4, has consented to the continuance of the lease on the terms contained in Ext.A4. There is another aspect in this case. The same issue was considered by the rent control appellate authority in Ext.A3 judgment earlier and it has been found in Ext.A3 judgment dated 17/3/2005 in RCA 82/2004 that clause (8) of Ext.A4 has operated and the said clause will enable the landlord to claim the rent increased at the rate of 15 % upon the expiry of three years and the period fixed under Ext. A4. As already indicted, any order of eviction passed by any authority under the Rent Control Act including this court under Section 20 is liable to be got vacated at the instance of the R.C.R..No.66/2009 4 tenant by making requisite deposits. Even as we dismiss the Rent Control Revision we permit the revision petitioner tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as found by the authorities below within 45 days from today and get the order of eviction passed by the rent control authority formally vacated under Section 11 (2)(c) of the Act. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk