IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 26 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.108/2005 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY RCP.189/2002 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR (IA 2910/2004) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- P.V.SURESHAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KANNARATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, MOTTAMMAL.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C SRI.A.C.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. M.V.P.SAINAVA, PALANGAT HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 301. 2. M.V.P.MARIYUMMA, PALANGAT HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 301. ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN FOR R1,R2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.26 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court in I.A. Nos.2909/2004 & 2910/2004 in RCP No.189/2002 filed against the revision petitioner by the respondents /landlords. These I.As were for setting aside an ex parte order of eviction and for condoning the delay caused in the matter. 2. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the Judgment of the Appellate Authority. As such we do not find any infirmity either about the order of the Rent Control Court or about the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We are convinced that the revision petitioner/tenant was negligent in the matter of pursuing the defence that he had taken to the Rent Control Petition. But ,we notice that the RCR.No.26/2011 2 order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court in favour of the respondents/landlords is not on consideration of the merits of the grounds, but is one by default of the revision petitioner. We feel that there is a case where the revision petitioner can be afforded an opportunity to pursue the contentions raised by him in the belated counter that he had filed to the Rent Control Petition by imposing stringent conditions. 3. The monthly rent of Rs.200/- , which is being paid by the revision petitioner, was admittedly fixed in the year 1999. The report submitted by the commissioner will show that the building is situated in a commercially very important area of Kannapuram, the town where the building is situated. We feel that if the building is let out today, the same will fetch at least Rs.1,500./- per month. We are inclined to refix the rent prospectively as one of the conditions for granting relief to the revision petitioner. 4. As already indicated, the revision petitioner was very negligent in the matter of pursuing his defence to the rent control petition. He has to pay a penalty for his negligence and as a condition for obtaining relief. A time frame also will have to RCR.No.26/2011 3 be fixed for final disposal of the rent control petition. It is brought to our notice that, but for the stay order that this court has passed, the respondents would have been able to get possession of the building. It is also brought to our notice that the adjacent room, eviction of which also sought on the same ground, has already been taken possession by the landlords. We are keeping in mind all these circumstances for fixing up the conditions. 5. The result of the above discussion is, therefore ,as follows; 1). The order of the Rent Control Court and the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority will stand set aside and the two interlocutory applications filed by the revision petitioner will stand allowed subject to the following conditions; i). The rent payable by the revision petitioner for the building in question will stand refixed with effect from 1-2-2011 at Rs.1,500/- per month. This refixation is subject to the right of the revision petitioner and the landlords to move the Rent Control Court by RCR.No.26/2011 4 appropriate application under Section 5 for regular fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is fixed, the revision petitioner shall pay the rent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. ii). The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- to the respondents/landlords either directly or through their advocate in this court within ten days from today and produce receipt before the Rent Control Court. Iii). The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee also, within the same time limit and produce receipt before the Rent Control Court. iv). The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court undertaking to pay rent for the building with effect from1-2-2011 at Rs.1,500/- per mensem within ten days from today. 2). Once the Rent Control Court notices compliance with RCR.No.26/2011 5 all the conditions stipulated above, this judgment will become operative and in such an event, the Rent Control Petition will be posted by the Rent Control Court for trial in the earliest available special list. The petitioner will be tried thereafter on a day to day basis and order will be passed by the Rent Control Court on merits of the eviction grounds without delay. We make it clear that if any of the conditions stipulated above are not honoured by the revision petitioner, the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority will stand confirmed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk