IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 RCRev..No. 532 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.114/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.1607/1998 of III ADDL. M.C.,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER(RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF) --------------------------------------- DR.VINCENT, S/O.JOSEPH PAUL, CHETTUPUZHAKKARAN HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(APPELLANT/DEFENDANT): --------------- PYARELAL MAHAJAN, PROPRIETOR, SOUTH INDIAN INDUSTRIES, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ I.A. No.3340/2009 & R.C.R.No. 532 OF 2005 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. I.A. No.3340/2009 is filed by the landlord/revision petitioner seeking direction to the respondent/tenant to pay amount due on account of the rent which fell due in respect of the petition schedule building after the payment admitted in Ext.A1. We are certainly convinced that substantial amount is payable to the revision petitioner by the respondent as arrears of rent. But, we notice that the proceedings before the lower court was for fixation of fair rent only. In fact the revision petitioner/landlord approached the civil court in view of the judgment of this court in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala (1995(2) KLT 848) striking down Sections 5, 6 & 8 of the Rent Control Act. The grievance of the petitioner in the present revision is that the appellate court interfered with the decision of the trial court fixing the fair rent at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Supreme Court has upheld the judgment of this court in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria ( 2004 (1) KLT 767), under which this court restored RCR.No.532/2005 2 Section 5(1) to the Rent Control Statute and issued guidelines to the Rent Control Court in the matter of fixing fair rent of buildings. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Edger Ferus's case(supra) approving the judgment in 2004 (1) KLT 767, the relief sought for in the revision petition is to be granted to the revision petitioner by the competent Rent Control Court. 2. We therefore, dispose of the revision petition directing the petitioner to move the competent Rent Control Court for fixation of fair rent. If the revision petitioner files an application before the Rent Control Court under Section 5 (1), that court will take decision on the basis of the evidence which comes on record without being influenced in any manner by the order of the trial court and the First Appellate Authority which are impugned in this revision. 3. As for the grievance of the revision petitioner that the substantial amount is in arrears, it is always open to the revision petitioner to file a petition for eviction of the respondent under Section 11(2) (b), in which case it may be possible for the revision petitioner to compel the respondent to pay the arrears of RCR.No.532/2005 3 rent admittedly due by virtue of the proviso to Section 12 of the Statute. The Revision Petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk