IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 RCRev..No. 79 of 2009() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2009 IN IA.465/2009 IN RCA.7/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA OPBRC.15/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- K.PADMAKSHAN, RESIDING AT IDAYILA VEEDU, PULLIKKANAKKU MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN SRI.M.S.NISHAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SNEHALETHA, RESIDING AT ASWATHY, WARD NO.5,NEAR TOWN HALL, PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R1 SRI.R.REJI FOR R1 SMT.THARA THAMBAN FOR R1 SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN FOR R1 SRI.B.BIPIN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.79 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is Annexure -4 order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Under Annexure-4 the Appellate Authority imposed a condition for granting stay of execution that the entire arrears of rent alleged by the landlady should be deposited by the tenant appellant. The eviction order was passed by the Rent Control Court on the grounds of arrears of rent, bona fide own occupation and also on the ground of requirement of reconstruction. 2. Noticing merit prima facie in the contention of the revision petitioner that in a case where the quantum of arrears itself was in issue, it was not proper on the part of the Appellate Authority to have insisted that the entire arrears alleged by the landlord should be deposited, we passed the following order while ordering notice to the respondent on 19/3/2009. R.C.R..No.79/2009 2 “In the meanwhile, there will be an interim stay as prayed for on condition that the revision petitioner pays to the respondent/landlady either directly or through her counsel in the Rent Control Appellate Authority, a sum of Rs.5,400/- towards landlady's claim within seven days from today. It is made clear that such payment will be without prejudice to the contention raised by the revision petitioner and in the event of the issue being decided finally in favour of the revision petitioner, the respondent will be bound to pay back the amount”. 3. Pursuant to the notice, Sri.M.V.Thampan, entered appearance on behalf of the respondent/landlady. We today heard Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.M.V.Thampan. Sri.Rajasekharan Pillai would assail Ext.P4 order on the various grounds raised in the rent control revision. Sri.MV.Thampan would defend Annexure 4 R.C.R..No.79/2009 3 saying that there is no scope for any legitimate contest regarding the arrears of rent. 4. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the Rent Control Appellate Authority should not have insisted in the rent control appeal, which was directed against the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b), that the entire arrears alleged by the respondent/landlady should be deposited as a condition for granting stay. We therefore, set aside Annexure 4 and direct our interim order dated 19/3/2009 to continue till the disposal of the rent control appeal. The Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to hear both sides and dispose of the rent control appeal itself in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. The Rent Control Revision is allowed as above. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk