IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 20 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.132/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDL. DISTRICT COURT), THALASSERY RCP.62/2006 of RENT CONTROLLER (MUNSIFF) COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER:APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/TENANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THAYKANDIKUNIYIL MUHAMMED AFSAL, S/O.ABOOTY, AGED 42 YEARS, ROOM.NO.20/339, NEAR T.M.MASALA,M.M.ROAD, THALASSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.C.KHALID, SRI.T.P.SAJID. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/LANDLORD: ----------------------------------------------------------------- S.GIRIDHAR, S/O.SUBBARAM NAIDU, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT PRAVANA SADANAM, M.M.ROAD, VADIKKAL,THALASSERY-PIN-670 101. BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.No.20 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 Order Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming an ex parte order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court against the revision petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent (Sec.11(2)(a)(b), user of the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility materially and permanently (Sec.11(4)(ii)) and cessation of occupation (Sec.11 (4)(v) ). The appeal was preferred to the Appellate Authority urging that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in appearing before the Rent Control Court when the case was taken up for trial. The Appellate Authority was not impressed by the grounds raised by the appellant-revision petitioner and held that the appellant is in the habit of defaulting whenever the case is posted for evidence in the list and would dismiss the appeal. Before us learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed RCR 20/2011 2 very appealing arguments based on the various grounds raised. He submitted that this is a case where the merits of the eviction grounds have not been adjudicated with the participation of the tenant. Mr.E.S.M.Kabeer, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would support the impugned judgment. According to him, the learned statutory authorities have rightly passed the impugned order and judgment as the appellant was wilfully evading the court. 2. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions made at the bar. Taking into account, that the merits of the eviction grounds have not been adjudicated by the statutory authorities with the participation of the tenant, we feel that the revision can be allowed by way of remand imposing very stringent conditions. The result of the above discussion will be as follows: The order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority will stand set aside and the R.C.P. will go back to the Rent Control Court, Thalassery subject to the following conditions: 1. The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards RCR 20/2011 3 rent and interest admittedly in arrears since 30.4.2008 within 30 days from today. Payment can be made either directly to the landlord or to the landlord's counsel in this court or in the court below against a memo. 2. The revision petitioner pays a sum of Rs.3000/- as cost to the respondent either directly or through the respondent's counsel in this court Mr.E.S.M.Kabeer within three weeks from today and produces the receipt before the Rent Control Court. 3. The rent payable by the revision petitioner for the building in question will stand refixed tentatively with effect from 1.4.2011 at Rs.750/- per mensem. We clarify that the above fixation is tentative and if either parties are aggrieved, it is open to them to move the Rent Control Court under Section 5 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is fixed as above, the revision petitioner shall pay the rent at the above rate. Once the above conditions are complied with by the revision petitioner, this order remanding the matter to the Rent Control Court will become operative. Once this order becomes operative, the Rent Control Court will post the case in the earliest available list and try the case on a day to day basis and pass a revised RCR 20/2011 4 order adjudicating the merits of the eviction grounds raised. We make it clear that if any of the conditions are not complied with by the revision petitioner, the impugned judgment will stand confirmed and the R.C.R. will stand dismissed. The parties will enter appearance before the court below on the day the court reopens after mid summer holidays. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd RCR 20/2011 5 RCR 20/2011 6