IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 459 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.141/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , THALASSERY RCP.7/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT , THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ NARON PAVITHRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, TAILOR, NO.12/B 15, SAJIYAS SHOPPING COMPLEX, N.C.C.ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ MOHAMMAD FASAL OLIYATH, S/O.POOCHAKKANDY PANAKKAT UMMER HAJI, SUFZAN, N.C.C.ROAD,THALASSERY,REP.BY P/A HOLDER OLIYATH ABDUL SATTAR, S/O.UMMER HAJI, AGED 58 YEARS, SAFY, THALASSERY AMSOM,VADIKKAKAM DESOM,PILAKOOL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN 670101. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R NO. 459 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against him by the Rent Control Court on the ground under Section 11 (2)(b); the arrears of rent. Even though various grounds have been raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.C.P.Peethambaran learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed submissions before us based on all those grounds, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court, we are of the view that, within the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20, there is no warrant for interference. The finding concurrently entered by the two statutory authorities that the rent was in arrears and that the same was not discharged in spite of the statutory intimation notice sent by the respondents, in our opinion ,is a correct finding. Moreover, it is RCR No.459 /2011 2 well known that orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2) (b), unlike orders passed under some other sub sections of section 11, are provisional orders which are always liable to be got vacated by making requisite deposits under Section11(2)(c). In fact one of the submissions of Mr.Peethambaran addressed before us was that in this case, where the petitioner is an impecunious tailor, there is justification for granting more than the normal period of one month for vacating the eviction order under Section 11(2)(c). Under the above circumstances, even as we dismiss the revision petition as we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, we issue urgent notice by speed post to the respondent to determine as to the extent of time which can be given to the petitioner for invoking section 11 (2)(c) for getting the eviction order vacated. Issue urgent notice by speed post. Post on 21/12/2011. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk RCR No.459 /2011 3