IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 108 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.101/2005 of THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA RCP.41/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT/MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PAKKAYIL JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 58 YEARS, PENSIONER, RESIDING AT "ASWATHI", VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THURUTHIYIL NADUVILETATH KALLIANI AMMA, W/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 70 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, C/O.N.RAJAN, NO.4A, CONSTABLE ROAD, AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI, PIN-600 023, TAMIL NADU. 2. N.RAJAN, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 46, OCCUPATION NOT KNOWN, NO.4A, CONSTABLE ROAD, AYANAVARAM, CHENNAI, PIN-600 023, TAMIL NADU. 3. N.SREEDHARAN, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAMBIAR AGED 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION NOT KNOWN, 12/1 SOURASHTRA NAGAR, 9TH STREET CHULAMET, CHENNAI, PIN-600 094, TAMIL NADU. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.108 of 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of December 2010 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Even though the respondents are duly served with the notice, they have not come forward to resist the prayers in the RCR. The landlord in this revision under Section 20 challenges the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority confirming the negative order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing the rent control petition which was filed under Sub section (5) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The landlord filed the petition under Section 11(5) seeking an order of “eviction”. However, a careful reading of the Rent Control Petition would show that it was only filed under Section 11(5) of the Act and what could have been granted to the revision petitioner by the Rent Control Court was R.C.R. No.108 of 2006 -: 2 :- only a permission to enter and carry out the renovation within the time fixed by the court. In fact, it is clear on a reading of rival pleadings that both sides understood the RCP to be one filed under Section 11(5). The statutory authorities also have enquired into the RCP as one under Section 11(5). The finding concurrently entered by the authorities is that the building requires repairs only and not renovation. Considering the arguments advanced by Mr.K.P.Balasubramanyan before us based on Ext.C1 report and the contention raised by the tenant in the RCP that the building requires extensive repairs. We find force in the submission of Mr.Balasubramanyan that the building requires atleast renovation. However, one reason why relief was denied to the landlord is that the landlord did not adduce any oral evidence to support his claim. The above reason cannot be said to be unsound. Under these circumstances we are of the view that it will suffice if the petitioner is permitted to institute fresh proceedings against R.C.R. No.108 of 2006 -: 3 :- the respondent/tenant for appropriate reliefs including the relief under Section 11(5). We notice another aspect of the matter. The petition schedule building is the first floor portion of a storeyed building. The respondent/tenant is conducting a primary school and there are atleast 4 class rooms and an office room in this school. The monthly rent of Rs.7/- which is being paid by the respondent was fixed in 1954. The building situated is in Vadakara town, we therefore find that the monthly rent being paid by the tenant is ridiculously low. We refix the monthly rent payable by the respondent with effect from 1.1.2011 at Rs.1000/- per mensem. We make it clear that the above fixation of rent is tentative and it will be open to both the parties to apply to the Rent Control Court for regular fixation of fair rent. Till such fixation the respondent shall pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per mensem to the landlord. Therefore the RCR is disposed of issuing the following directions:- R.C.R. No.108 of 2006 -: 4 :- The judgment of the Appellate Authority is confirmed but petitioner is given liberty to initiate further proceedings for appropriate reliefs including the relief under Sub section (5) of Section 11. Rent payable by the tenant is fixed with effect from 1.1.2011 at the rate of Rs.1000/- per mensem. It is open to either party to apply to the Rent Control Court for regular fixation of fair rent. Until fair rent is fixed by the Rent Control Court, the tenant shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per mensem. The petitioner is directed to send a copy of this judgment as and when he obtains the same to the 2nd respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt R.C.R. No.108 of 2006 -: 5 :- In the order dated 27/06/2011 in R.C.R 108/2006, the second sentence in the first page reading “Even though the respondents are duly served with notice, they have not come forward to resist the prayers in the RCR”, and the last sentence at page 4 reading “The petitioner is directed to send a copy of this order as and when he obtains the same to the 2nd respondent by registered post with acknowledgment due” are deleted vide order dated 18/08/2011 in I.A. 1831/2011 in R.C.R 108/2006. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)