IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 RCRev..No. 54 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.139/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ P.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.MADHAVI, KAYYATH ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- P.K.JAMEELA, SUBAIDA MANZIL, T.C.ROAD, THALASSERY AMSOM, DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN FOR R THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ RCR No.54 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant in a revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965, is aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing I.A.No.2274/2004, which was filed by him for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction passed against him on the ground under Section 11 (2) (a) (b) and 11 (3) of the Act of 1965 and also by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. 2. Heard Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Sri.K.Rajesh Sukumaran, learned counsel for the respondent landlord. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose submits that the tenant's absence on the day the rent control petition stood posted for trial was not wilfull. He was advised by a renowned Cardiologist to take complete rest for the reason RCR .No.54/2009 2 that he was suffering from heart deceases including mio cardial infarction. The learned counsel submits that medical certificate had been produced before the Rent Control Court and that the Rent Control Court was not justified in dismissing the application on the reason that on earlier occasion also the tenant had applied for adjournment when the case was listed for trial, on the same ground. The learned counsel further submitted that the ailment is not a completely curable one and the revision petitioner continues to be under the treatment of the cardiologist, who issued the medical certificate The petition schedule building is a small building wherein the petitioner is residing. The petitioner is an impecunious person who will be thrown out to the street, if he is evicted on the strength of the impugned eviction order, so submits the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that adjournment was sought for without any bona fides and the intention of the revision petitioner is only to protract the trial to the maximum extent possible and thereby postpone the inevitable order of eviction which is liable to be passed against him. The building is needed bona fide for the occupation of the RCR .No.54/2009 3 landlord's daughter, who is without a residential building. The learned counsel pointed out that the rent is in arrears since July 2001 and the idea of the tenant is to cling on to the petition schedule building paying the paltry rent of Rs.25/- per month. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. It is submitted by both sides that the building in question is a line building situated at Thiruvangad, which is an important locality of Thalassery Municipality. It is also practically conceded that the rent is in arrears since July 2001. But , the version of the tenant is that the rent fell into arrears only because of the refusal of the landlord to accept the rent though it was tendered. It is seen that the medical certificate, which was produced by the petitioner in support of the application for adjournment, was issued by a Cardiologist whose credentials are not in dispute. That the petitioner on an earlier occasion also sought for and obtained an adjournment on the same ground by itself cannot be a reason for disallowing the adjournment if, as a matter of fact, the petitioner was laid up and unable to attend the court on the fateful day. The policy of law is that all causes, as far as RCR .No.54/2009 4 possible should be adjudicated on their merits and not decided without enquiry. We keep in mind that policy and feel that one more opportunity can be given to the revision petitioner tenant to meet the case on its merits. At the same time, we are not inclined to grant opportunity without imposing conditions. It is clear to our mind that the sum of Rs.25/- fixed in 1968 as the contract rent for the building is far below the prevailing market rent in the locality. We take this also into account and dispose of this revision petition issuing the following orders; 1). The order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority will stand set aside and I.A.No.2274/2004 will stand allowed provided the following conditions are satisfied by the revision petitioner tenant; i). The rent of the building is refixed tentatively with effect from 1/5/2009 as Rs.50/- per mensum. It is clarified that such refixation by us is without prejudice to the rights of either sides to move the appropriate court for fixation of the fair rent for the building. The tenant shall RCR .No.54/2009 5 pay rent at the above rate with effect from 1/5/2009. ii). The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2350/-, which is quantified by us as the arrears of rent due from him in respect of the petition schedule building, within one month from today to the respondent either directly or through her counsel in this court. Iii). The revision petitioner shall pay along with the arrears of rent and interest found above, a sum of Rs.1,000/- by way of cost to the respondent directly or through her counsel in this court. 2). Upon the above conditions being satisfied and obeyed, the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Rent Contrl Appellate Authority will stand set aside and I.A. No.2274/2004 will stand allowed and the RCP will stand reposted before the Rent Control Court, Thalassery for trial. That court will special list the rent control petition for trial in the earliest RCR .No.54/2009 6 available special list and will try the case on a day today basis and ensure that revised judgment is passed in the rent control petition within three weeks of commencement of the trial. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk