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 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 282 of 2010() ------------------------------ RCA.37/2009 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.44/2008 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- MRS.JAGADAMMA AGED 45 YEARS, M.K.TRADING COMPANY, W/O.MR.KABIRDAS, DOOR NO.39/778, IYYATTUMUKKU, MAHAKAVI G.ROAD, OFF CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT KOTTARATHIL, 57/804, MAHAKAVI G.ROAD, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDETNS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL RAZACK,S/O.ABDUL KHADER, NORTH ALUNGAL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. MRS.SAFIYA W/O.LATE P.SAIDU MOHAMMED NORTH ALUNGAL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. MRS.SAFEENA,D/O.LATE P.SAIDU MOHAMMED, NORTH ALUNGAL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 4. MRS.SAKEENA, ,D/O.LATE P.SAIDU MOHAMMED NORTH ALUNGAL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. ......2/-.... ...2... 5. MR.MOHAMED SHAMSEER,S/O.LATE P. SAIDU MOHAMMED NORTH ALUNGAL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 6. MRS. RUKIYA, W/O. LATE CHINNAKKAL SAIDU MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT CHINNAKKAL HOUSE, KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 7. MR. ALI CHINNAKKAL, S/O. LATE CHINNAKKAL SAIDU MOHAMMED,RESIDING AT CHINNAKKAL HOUSE KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 8. MRS.SABEENA CHINNAKKAL, D/O.LATE CHINNAKKAL SAIDU MOHAMMED,RESIDING AT CHINNAKKAL HOUSE KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 9. MRS.TAHIRA, D/O.LATE CHINNAKKAL SAIDU MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT CHINNAKKAL HOUSE KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 10. MR.CHINNAKKAL ISMAIL,S/O.LATE CHINNAKKAL SAIDU MOHAMMED,RESIDING AT CHINNAKKAL HOUSE KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 11. MRS.SALIH SYEDMOHAMED, D/O.LATE CHINNAKKAL SAIDU MOHAMMED,RESIDING AT CHINNAKKAL HOUSE KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 12. MRS.HAJIRAH CHINNAKKAL, D/O.LATE CHINNAKKAL SAIDU MOHAMMED,RESIDING AT CHINNAKKAL HOUSE KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 13. MR.YOUSEF CHINNAKKAL, S/O.LATE CHINNAKKAL SAIDU MOHAMMED,RESIDING AT CHINNAKKAL HOUSE KADAPPURAM P.O., CHAVAKKAD, TRICHUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R13 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- R.C.R.No.282 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Pius. C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming a summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) against the revision petitioner. According to the allegations in the Rent Control Petition, the contract rent payable as on the date of the Rent Control Petition and the date of the statutory demand notice under Section 11(2)(3) proviso is Rs.5,210/- per mensem. The allegation of the landlord was that inspite of the issuance of the notice the tenant did not pay the rent demanded. The tenant filed statement of objections disputing the rent in arrears as well as the contract. It was contended that the original contract render Rs.4,500/- per mensem was never agreed to be enhanced. It was further contended, the rent was in arrears only by one month. After the revision petitioner filed objections the landlord filed I.A. No.7855/2008, an application under Section 12(1), seeking a direction to the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent and R.C.R.No.282/2010 2 for a summary order of eviction on failure to make payments. Considering the above I.A., the Rent Control Court passed an order on 16.2.2009 directing the revision petitioner to pay the admitted arrear due as on 2.8.2008 and the rent which has fallen due on 16.2.2009 and the case was adjourned to 16.2.2009. By that day, no payment at all was made by the revision petitioner. But the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.2256/2009 seeking seven weeks time to pay off the admitted arrears of rent and the rent subsequently due. The learned Rent Control Court on considering the above I.A. granted time till 30.5.2008, that is, the revision petitioner was given time till that date to pay the admitted arrears as well as the rent which had fallen due till that date. The case was posted to 30.5.2009. By 30.5.2009 also, the revision petitioner did not pay the requisite amount in full. Noticing non-payment, the learned Rent Control Court passed an order directing the revision petitioner to show cause against the passage of a summary order of eviction. When no satisfactory cause was shown, the learned Rent Control Court passed the summary order of eviction under Section 12(3). Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority pursuant to conditions imposed by R.C.R.No.282/2010 3 that authority for granting stay, it appears the revision petitioner paid the admitted rent in arrears and the rent which fell due subsequently. However, taking the view that unlike order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) summary orders of eviction under Section 12(3) are not liable to be vacated on the basis of subsequent deposits, the learned appellate authority declined to interfere with the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the appellate authority. 2. The learned counsel, Sri.Devan Ramachandran, appearing for the revision petitioner, addressed strenuous and persuasive arguments before us on the basis of the grounds raised. All the submissions of Mr. Devan Ramachandran were resisted by Mr.Mohammed Usman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The short question which arises for decision is whether the judgment of the appellate authority is vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as contemplated by Section 20. R.C.R.No.282/2010 4 3. Having scanned the judgment of the appellate authority by the parameters applicable for exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, it is very clear to our mind that the above judgment is not vitiated. At the same time, we notice that arrears of rent was the only ground of eviction invoked by landlord against the revision petitioner. Albeit during the pendency of the rent control appeal, admitted arrears and subsequent rent due as on the date of payment was paid by the revision petitioner. We are therefore of the view that despite the stiff opposition from the side of Mr.Mohammed Usman, some indulgence can be shown to the revision petitioner on very stringent conditions. 4. One of the submissions of Mr. Usman was that the monthly rent actually payable by the revision petitioner as on today is Rs.6000/- per mensem since the escalation clause in the rent sheet will operate. Event that rent is far below the rent of the building will fetch and the same is let out today. Learned counsel also pointed out that the building is situated on a very important point, where the Chittoor road and the Mahakavi G. R.C.R.No.282/2010 5 road in Cochin Corporation meet. 5. We find considerable merit in the above submission of Mr.Usman and we are of the view that while granting relief to the petitioner, tentative refixation of the rent prospectively can be made. 6. According to the calculation of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner arrears of rent due as on 1.10.2010 exclusive of statutory interest will come to Rs.1,44,000/-. We are of the view that towards interest at the statutory rate of 6%, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will certainly be due upon to the above amount. We also feel that it is appropriate that the revision petitioner pays an amount of Rs.3000/- to the respondent as cost for the proceedings so far. We are therefore of the view that it can be ordered that if the above total amount of Rs.1,57,000/- is paid by the revision petitioner within six weeks from toady, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the appellate authority will stand vacated. It is ordered accordingly. R.C.R.No.282/2010 6 7. Grant of above relief to the revision petitioner will be subject to another condition. The rent payable by the revision petitioner for the building in question will stand refixed with effect from 1.11.2010 at Rs.7500/- per month. We make it clear that the above refixation is tentative and if either party is aggrieved he is free to approach the Rent Control Court by filing appropriate application under Section 5. Till fair rent is fixed by the Rent Control Court revision petitioner shall pay rent at the above rate of Rs.7500/- per month. We would like to clarify that if it is noticed by the Rent Control Court that the revision petitioner has complied with the direction for payment of Rs.1,57,000/- on time, nothing further will remain in the Rent Control Petition for enquiry and the Rent Control Petition will have to be disposed of on the basis that the entire arrears of rent is wiped off. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps