IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 274 of 2010() ------------------------ RCR.134/2006 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM RCP.7/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------- ANAND THOMAS, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE A.K.THOMAS, ATTELIL KARUKADAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, K.A.KURIAKOSE, KUDIYATTU HOUSE, MATHIRAPILY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. K.M.SALIM, KOROTHUKUDY, KUROORKARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. BENNY, KALLUNGAL HOUSE, KARURKADAM, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM. 4. ABJILASH THOMAS, S/O. LATE A.K.THOMAS, ATTELIL, KARUKADAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 274 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. It is seen that the 4th respondent is yet to be served with notice of the RCR. We find that the 4th respondent was along with the petitioner a tenant and that he has been arrayed as the respondent in RCR only because he is presently not available in the country. We exonerate the revision petitioner from the obligation of taking out notice to the 4th respondent as we are convinced that the petitioner is espousing the cause of the 4th respondent also in the RCR. 2. Under challenge in this revision filed by the joint tenants under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing an application filed by the two joint tenants for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction passed against them as well as a separate application filed by them for condoning the delay which was caused in the matter of RCR.No.274/2010 2 filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. Two petitions filed before the Rent Control Court were enquired into by the Rent Control Court and on appreciating the evidence, that Court came to the conclusion that sufficient ground was not made out for condoning the delay for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. 3. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment passed in an appeal preferred by the present revision petitioner(his brother- co tenant having left the country in the meanwhile) has confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court. 4. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We notice on a scrutiny of the grounds as well as the other materials produced before us that this was a case where the revision petitioner and his brother admitted their status in the building to be that of a tenant under the first respondent, the petitioner landlord. We also notice that the contract rent alleged by the landlord was not disputed. We further notice that eviction was sought only on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2) RCR.No.274/2010 3 (b) and also that it is not contended that arrears, which was demanded under the statutory notice, under provisos to Section 11 (2)(b) was disputed. On the contrary, the contention is that subsequent to the execution of the rental arrangement, there has been further agreement between the parties under which a substantial amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was advanced by the revision petitioner and his brother to the first respondent landlord and it was agreed by the landlord that the tenant does not have to pay the rent in future. The tenancy is admittedly governed by a written rental agreement. That being the position, it will be extremely difficult for the tenant to set up a plea of subsequent advance and subsequent oral agreement not to pay the rent. 5.We notice that it is not an absolute eviction order that has been sought for and passed by the Rent Control Court. It is trite by decisions of this Court that eviction orders passed under Section 11 (2)(b) are tentative in the sense that they are always liable to be vacated by making requisite deposits under Section 11(2)(c). We are informed that the building is situated in a commercially very important part of Kotamangalam Municipal RCR.No.274/2010 4 Town and that the petitioner is carrying on the business in sanitary wares therein. 6. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance about the eviction order passed as the same is only a tentative one. Even otherwise, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety thereon as contemplated by Section 20 for warranting interference. 7. We dismiss the RCR. We grant two months time from today to the revision petitioner to move the Rent Control Court by appropriate application under Section 11(2)(c). It is open to the revision petitioner to convince the Rent Control Court regarding the sufficiency of the payment/deposit made by him for the purpose of getting favourable order under Section 11 (2) (c). We make it clear that the revision petitioner will not get the benefit of the above direction, including the extended time for making deposits under Section 11(2)(c), unless he deposits with the Rent control Court or pays to the landlord either directly or RCR.No.274/2010 5 through the landlord's counsel before the Rent Control Court a sum of Rs.1,31,473/- which is the amount demanded in the statutory notice issued by the landlord prior to the filing of the RCP within three weeks from today. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk