IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 RCRev..No. 341 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.83/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.41/2003 of RENT CONTROL COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- VASU,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMUTHAPPAN VEETIL RAMAN, CHERAYI DESOM, KADIKKAD AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ CHETTISSERU KHADER,AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, CHAMMANNUR DESOM, PUNNAYOORKULAM AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 341 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act. 2. The tenant revision petitioner had raised dispute regarding the contract rent payable. That dispute and also the dispute as to what is the quantum of rent in arrears was decided by the Rent Control Court after enquiry in which the evidence adduced by the parties consisted of Ext.A1 to A6 and testimonies of PW1 and RW1. It was accepting the case of the landlord that the rent control court concluded that the rent was in arrears as alleged and that the same was not paid in spite of the statutory demand notice. Accordingly, the order of eviction was passed. RCR.No.341/2010 2 3. The appellate authority considering the appeal preferred by the tenant would confirm the findings of the rent control court and dismiss the appeal. 4. Even though various grounds have been raised and Sri.V.C.Madhavankutty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has addressed arguments before us based on those grounds, we are not persuaded to hold that there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the appellate authority. We are convinced that the findings concurrently entered by the statutory authorities regarding the rate of rent and also regarding the quantum of arrears due to the landlord is correct and founded on evidence. In short, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. 1. 5. The revision petition fails and will stand dismissed however, without any order as to cost. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner requests for time to deposit the amount, so that the order of eviction can be got vacated under Section 11(2)(c). Hence, even as we dismiss the RCR, we grant the revision petitioner one month's time from today for RCR.No.341/2010 3 making requisite deposit for getting order of eviction vacated under Section 11(2)(c) by filing necessary application. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk