IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No.151 of 2009 (A) ------------------------------- RCA.5/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA RCP.43/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/2ND PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT -------------------------------------------------------------------- R.SELVARAJ, AMC XVII/444, MULLACKAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.AZAD BABU SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS 1-5/RESPONDENTS 1-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNARJUNAN, PANACKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, M.O.WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. LEELAVATHY AMMAL, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 3. SIVAKAMI, W/O.LATE RAJAN BABU, ATHULYA APARTMENTS, NEAR HOTEL ALANKAR, COIMBATORE - 9. 4. SIDHARTHAN, D/O.RAJAN BABU, DO. DO. MINOR. 5. SWATHI, D/O.SIVAKAMI, DO. DO. MINOR, [RESPONDENS 4 & 5 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN THE 3RD RESPONDENT] ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE FOR R3 TO R5 SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.151 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this application filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is an interlocutory order passed by the rent control appellate authority. The order was passed in I.A.No.366/2009 in RCA no.5/2005. I.A. No.366/2009 was filed for a direction to the appellate authority to notice what was described as a relevant subsequent event of the landlord's mother passing away and the building occupied by the mother becoming available to the landlord. The ground, on which eviction was sought for and allowed by the rent control court, was the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The need projected was that the landlord, who is put up in a building along with his mother and sisters is experiencing considerable inconveniences and hence the building, which is subject mater of the RCP, is required for own occupation by the landlord. During the pendency of the appeal, the landlord's mother passed away. It was then that I.A.No.366/2009 was filed by the revision petitioner tenant RCR .No.151/2009 2 seeking amendment of the statement of objection filed by him to the rent control petition for the purpose of incorporating a specific contention that on account of the subsequent event of the landlord's mother's demise the petition has become not maintainable in view of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. That I.A. was dismissed by the rent control appellate authority by the order impugned in this revision petition. Several grounds have been raised by the revision petitioner assailing the order of the rent control appellate authority. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. P.C.Chacko, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri.M.Narendrakumar, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri.Jawahar Jose learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5. To what extent subsequent events can be taken notice of by the authorities under the Rent Control Act has been subject matter of many judicial precedents. It can be stated without much difficulty that the ratio emerging from those decisions is that the authorities under the Rent Control Act can take notice of those subsequent events which have fundamental impact on the right or liability of the parties to secure or suffer order of eviction. The RCR .No.151/2009 3 decisions also lay down a distinction between subsequent events which occur before the rent control court adjudicates the issue and gives its verdict and those events which occur thereafter. In the instant case, the subsequent event, which has happened is that the landlord's mother, with whom the landlord was staying, passed away. The tenant's contention is that due to passing away of the landlord's mother the building where the landlord was staying has become available to the landlord for his own occupation. 4. Strong exception is taken to this case of the tenant by the landlord. According to him, in the same building his two sisters were also staying along with his mother and himself. The need which was projected in the rent control petition was the need to have his own independent residence so as to avoid inconveniences which were being experienced by him. We do not propose to settle the issue as to whether the demise of the landlord's mother resulting in alleged availability of the building belonging to the mother for the landlord is a relevant subsequent event. We will leave that issue for decision by the rent control appellate authority. The grievance voiced by RCR .No.151/2009 4 Sri.P.C.Chacko before us is that since I.A. 366/2009 was dismissed the revision petitioner will be prevented even from highlighting the relevant subsequent event before the rent control appellate authority. According to us, to redress this grievance it is not necessary that we interfere with the impugned order and allow that I.A. The appellant revision petitioner can be permitted notwithstanding the impugned order to highlight the subsequent event of landlord's mother's demise and the resulting alleged availability of the building belonging to the mother of the landlord as a subsequent event while the appeal is being argued. Accordingly, even as we decline to interfere with the impugned order, we dispose of this RCR directing the rent control appellate authority to permit the revision petitioner tenant to argue before the appellate authority that the demise of the mother and availability of the building which belong to the mother of the landlord for own occupation is a subsequent event which obliterates the need projected by the landlord under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The appellate authority will consider this argument and will take a correct decision keeping in mind the law relating to subsequent events in rent control proceedings as RCR .No.151/2009 5 settled by judicial precedents rendered by the Supreme Court and also by this court. We clarify once again that we have not by this judgment decided the question whether the building belonging to the mother has become available to the landlord and whether that building becoming available to the landlord is a subsequent event obliterating the need projected by the landlord in the petition under Section 11 (3). Since the rent control appeal is of the year 2005, the rent control appellate authority is directed to give top priority to the appeal and take early decision on the same. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk