IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No. 160 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.27/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA RCP.2/2006 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- SHYLA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL RAHIM, SHYLA MANZIL, NADAKKAVU ROAD, CHUNGAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------- LEELAMMA PUNNOOSE, W/O.PUNNOOSE, KONDAKASSERI HOUSE, MAMPUZHAKKARY, RAMANKARY, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.160 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 O R D E R --------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing I.A.1360/2008 in RCP.No.2/2006. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent landlady against the petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), bonafide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) and misuse of the building in a manner as to reduce the value and utility of the building materially and permanently under Section 11(4)(ii). The petitioner tenant filed statement of objections admitting the landlord-tenant relationship but disputing existence of grounds. Later in 2008, as the RCP was about to be RCR.160/2010 2 listed for trial, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.1360/2008 seeking amendment of the statement of objections filed in the RCP so as to incorporate a contention that the building in question was put up by the revision petitioner's predecessor in interest Sri.Bukhari upon land which was leased out to him for commercial purposes. In short, the contention sought to be incorporated through amendment was a contention that there is immunity from eviction under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The learned Rent Control Court dismissed the application saying that if the amendment is allowed, prejudice will be caused to the landlady since the amendment will enable the revision petitioner to get away from the admissions made by her in her original statement of objections. The above view was endorsed by the Appellate Authority also. 2. In this revision petition filed under Section 20 various grounds are raised challenging the judgment of RCR.160/2010 3 the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court. Smt.Bindu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed extensive arguments based on those grounds. She would submit that there are clinching documents which would show that it was Sri.Bukhari who put up the building and that Sri.Bukhari is the lessee of land and not of the building. She in fact showed us a few documents which would indicate that the Electricity connection to the building stood in the name of Sri.Bukhari. Sri.Azad Babu, who was holding the watching brief for the landlady, took notice as directed by us. Mr.Azad Babu submitted that there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned judgment under Section 20. According to him, if the amendment proposed is allowed, the revision petitioner will be enabled to get over the impact of fatal admissions which she had made in the original statement of objections. The amendment, in his opinion, will cause serious RCR.160/2010 4 prejudice to the respondent landlady. 2. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar. We are in agreement with Mr.Azad Babu that if the revision petitioner is allowed to withdraw from the pleadings already raised by her in her statement of objections already filed and to substitute them completely with new pleadings, then prejudice is likely to occasion to the respondent landlady. But, we notice that no legal prejudice is going to be occasioned to the respondent landlady if revision petitioner is allowed to raise proposed additional pleadings by filing a separate additional statement of objections. We feel that the petitioner can be permitted to file a fresh additional statement of objections without withdrawing from the statement of objections already filed. We are not inclined to grant even that relief to the petitioner unconditionally. We notice that the petitioner thought in terms of filing amendment application only at RCR.160/2010 5 a highly belated stage. Hence the petitioner has to pay a penalty for the delay. 3. The result of the above discussion is as follows: We do not interfere with the impugned judgment. But we permit the revision petitioner to file additional statement of objections raising the contention that she is entitled for immunity from eviction under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act. If additional statement of objections is filed within 7 days from today, the same will be received to file. The Rent Control Petition will be tried if possible on the day it is presently scheduled for trial. The issue raised through additional statement of objections will be considered along with the other issues which arise on the pleadings already raised. The issue as to whether the revision petitioner is entitled to immunity from eviction under Section 106 will not be referred to the Land Tribunal. It will be enquired into and adjudicated by the Rent Control Court itself. RCR.160/2010 6 4. This judgment will become operative only if the revision petitioner pays to the respondent either directly or through the respondent's counsel in this court a sum of Rs.1,500/- within 5 days from today and she pays a further amount of Rs.1,500/- to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee within the same time limit. Receipts against payment of the amounts will be produced by the revision petitioner before the Rent Control Court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb