IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 RCRev..No. 347 of 2011() ---------------------------------- RCA.10/2008 of IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE(RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY) RCP.77/1998 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,KOZHIKODE-II(RENT CONTROL COURT) . (IA.129/2005) .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S): RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.SASI VARMA, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.SUBHADRAKOVILAMMA, TEACHER SREEJA HOUSE, VALAYANAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. RAJASHRI VARMA, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.SUBHADRAKOVILAMMA, TEACHER PRANAVAM HOUSE, VALAYANAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------------------- P.PARTHASARATHI , S/O.P.K.VISWANATHAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, NO.8 KEERTHI NAGAR COLONY CHALAPPURAM PO, KOZHIKODE PIN 673 002. ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- R.C.R No.347 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J Both sides seek adjournment. We are not inclined to grant adjournment. The counsel for the respondent/tenant seeks an adjournment on the ground that the entire records have not been given to him by his party. We have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority by which the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the petition filed under Section 11(2)(c) by the respondents. Eventhough various grounds have been raised by the revision petitioner assailing the findings of the appellate authority in the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the reasons stated by the learned appellate authority for allowing the application under Section 11(2) (C) filed by the respondents are quite sound. We do not find any illegality, irregularity and impropriety as contemplated by Section 20, on the judgment of the appellate authority. After all eviction order under Section 11(2) (b) which had been passed by the statutory authorities in favour of the R.C.R No.347 of 2011 2 revision petitioner was not an absolute eviction order. Under the impugned judgment on appreciating the evidence the learned appellate authority found that the amount deposited by the respondents was sufficient for getting the eviction order vacated under Section 11(2)(c). The appellate authority's judgment is fortified by various binding decisions of this Court which are referred to therein. We do not find any warrant for interference with the judgment of the appellate authority. 2. But we notice that the monthly rent of Rs.140/- which is being paid by the respondents for the building situated in an important area of Kozhikode city Corporation is ridiculously low. The submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the annual property tax payable to the corporation for this building is Rs.5,888/- as against annual rent of Rs.1,680/- is also noticed by us. We are sure that if the building is let out today, the same will fetch a minimum rent of Rs.1,400/- per mensem. 3. We re-fix the rent payable by the respondents with effect from 1.1.2012 at Rs.1,400/- per month. If either party is aggrieved by this re-fixation, it is open to them to go to the Rent Control Court and file a regular application under Section 5 for R.C.R No.347 of 2011 3 fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is fixed regularly the respondent shall pay rent with effect from 1.1.2012 at Rs.1,400/- per mensem. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab