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 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 RCRev..No. 335 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.45/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KOLLAM RCOP.9/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 & 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL NAVAS, AGED 60, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN RAWTHER, MANGALATHU BUNGALOW, NADUKUNNU MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. ABDUL NAJEEB, AGED 57, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN RAWTHER, KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU, MANCHALLOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 3. ABDUL RAFEEK, AGED 51, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN RAWTHER, KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU, MANCHALLOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 4. ABDUL NEJUMO, AGED 49, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN RAWTHER, KANJIRAMVILA VEEDU, MANCHALLOOR MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 5. ASIYA UMMAL, AGED 56, W/O. ABDUL NAVAS, MANGALATHU BUNGALOW, NADUKUNNU MURI, PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SMT.K.V.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ S.M.SATHY, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. K.G.NARAYANAN VAIDYAN, S.N.BUNGALOW, PATHANAPURAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM VILLAGE, -DO- TALUK, PIN-689 695. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 335 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the respondents in R.C.(O.P.) 9/2005 before the Rent Control Court, Punalur is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground of arrears of rent alone. The allegation of the landlady was that rent at the rate of Rs.400/- per month was in default since 1/9/1987 and that arrears had not been discharged by the tenants in spite of the statutory demand notice. 2. The contention, which was seriously raised, was that the 5th revision petitioner Smt.Asiya Ummal, (the 9th respondent in the RCP), who is the wife of the 1st revision petitioner (2nd respondent in the RCP) is the owner of one half right over the petition schedule building and that the petitioner in the RCP, the respondent herein, is entitled for only the remaining one half. 3. The Rent Control Court enquired into the matter and on appreciating the evidence, which consisted of Exts.A1 to A10, RCR.No.335/2010 2 Exts.B1 to B6 and PW 1 and RW1, would come to the conclusion that the contract rent was Rs.400/- per month and that the same is in arrears from the date as alleged by respondent/landlady. It was also concluded that in spite of receiving the statutory demand notice, the rent was not discharged. As for the contention that the 5th respondent is entitled to one half right over the building and one half of the rent in arrears, the Rent Control Court took the view that in view of the statutory mandates under Section 11(2)(b), the court was not competent to settle a dispute like the one raised and that the court's enquiry was only to find whether the rent at the agreed rate had been discharged within the period of 15 days from receiving the statutory demand notice. It was found that such discharge had not been made and the order of eviction was passed. 4. The appellate authority considering the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner would confirm the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismiss the appeal. 5. In this revision, various grounds are raised and Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran, learned counsel for the revision RCR.No.335/2010 3 petitioners would give thrust in his submissions to the argument that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate authority went wrong in not noticing that the respondent in the RCP had only one half right over the building and was accordingly entitled only for one half of the rent in arrears. Mr.Hariharaputhran submitted that 50% of the total rent in arrears has been deposited and noticing that deposit the eviction order should be got vacated. 6. Even though Sri.Hariharaputhran was very vehement and persuasive in his submissions, we are unable to accept the submissions. It has been clearly found by the statutory authorities on a correct appreciation of the evidence that Rs.400/- is the contract rent. It is also not disputed that the rent at the above rate was not paid in spite of issuance of the statutory notice under proviso to section 11(3). When that is the position, it is inevitable that the order under Section 11(2)(b) issued. Of course, any order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) is tentative in the sense that the same can be got vacated by making requisite deposits and filing application under Section 11(2)(c). It was submitted that arrears of rent RCR.No.335/2010 4 quantified by the statutory authorities have been deposited to the extent of Rs.50%. It is open to the revision petitioners to deposit the balance also and get the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) vacated. As for the dispute if any between the 5th revision petitioner and the first respondent, we are sure that the Rent Control Court will take appropriate decision when an application for release of cheque for the amount in deposit is being considered. With the above observations, the RCR will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk