IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 162 of 2011() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2137/2010 IN RCA.33/2010 of DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM OPBRC.1/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY (IA.1577/2008) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ KRISHNA KUMAR, SON OF PARAMESWARAN CHETTIYAR, KRISHNAPRASADAM, CHERUSSERIBHAGOM, THOTTINUVADAKKU, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ MOHAN NAIR, SON OF BHASKARAN NAIR, KOTTINARAKIZHAKKETHARAIL, CHERUSSERIL BHAVAN, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.N.DHARMADAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SMT.D.P.RENU THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.No.162 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2011 Order Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing an application for condonation of the delay caused in the matter of filing the appeal and the judgment dismissing the appeal itself as a consequence. We are told that the delay was only 12 days. As the delay was only 12 days, we would have been inclined to condone the same without imposing any conditions. But we notice that in the judgment of the Appellate Authority that the learned Appellate Authority has observed that it will be open to the tenant to agitate the main issue that he intends to agitate in that appeal in a regular appeal under Section 18 which he may have to file against the eviction order which may be passed against him by the Rent Control RCR 162/11 2 Court. That observation, in our opinion, removes all possibilities of prejudice being caused to the tenant due to the confirmation of the impugned order and the judgment by us. The prominent contention raised by the tenant in the Rent Control Petition is one of denial of title. True, the Rent Control Court, on noticing that the sale deed as well as the rent deed was admittedly by the tenant has made an observation that the contention is not serious. Whatever that be, if the tenant believes that the above contention is serious and bonafide, it will be open to him to agitate that contention in an appeal he may have to file against the order of the Rent Control Court. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the eviction grounds. The Rent Control Court will decide on the merits of the eviction grounds on the basis of the evidence that comes on record. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner requests that we explore the possibilities of a settlement by summoning the parties to the court. We are RCR 162/11 3 not inclined to do so. We direct the Rent Control Court to explore the possibilities of a settlement between the parties before the actual trial is taken up in the Rent Control Court. The trial will be started only when the settlement between the parties is found not possible. The R.C.R is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd RCR 162/11 4 RCR 162/11 5