IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No.50 of 2006 ------------------------- RCA.61/1998 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, THALASSERY RCP.177/1997 of RENT CONTROL COURT (PRL.M.C.),KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- KUNNUMBRATH BIKKIRINTAVIDA SAIBU ANYIDUKKU WARD, KANNUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------- PANAYAMTHATTA THEKKE VEETTIL KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR, ARCHITECT, ROOM NO.K.C.6.372, THEKKEE BAZAR BUSINESS COMPLEX, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY. ADV. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.SARVOTHAMAN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.50 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 initiated by the landlady is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority interfering with the order of eviction which had been passed by the Rent Control Court in her favour on the reason that there are no sufficient pleadings in the Rent Control Petition to the effect that the son for whose occupation the landlady sought eviction is dependent on the landlady as contemplated by sub Section 3 of Section 11. Even though several attractive grounds have been R. C. R. No.50 of 2006 -2- raised in the RCR and Sri.V.Premchand, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us, having gone through the judgment in Koyilerian Janaki and others v. Rent Controller (2000(9) SCC 406) which was cited before us by Sri.T.P.Kelu Nambiar, the learned senior counsel for the respondent, we find it extremely difficult to uphold any of the grounds raised in the RCR or any of the submissions of Mr.Premchand. On our becoming inclined to remand the matter to the Rent Control Court as was done in Ismail v. Kesavan (2004(2) KLT 56) giving opportunity to the landlady to amend their pleadings it was submitted by Sri.Kelu Nambiar, the learned senior counsel that he has been instructed to submit that the son R. C. R. No.50 of 2006 -3- Muhammad Rasal for whom the landlady is seeking eviction is presently gainfully employed in a Gulf country. The learned senior counsel submitted that if the facts are so no useful purpose will be served by passing an order of remand. He further, submitted that there will not be any serious objection to the tenant in permitting the landlady to withdraw from the present RCP with liberty to file fresh RCP on legal grounds if any available. 2. Sri.V.Premchand would submit seeking instructions from Sri.Muhammad Rasal/PW1 who is present in this Court today that PW1 is not employed in Gulf country as submitted. PW1 continues to need the building for his own occupation. R. C. R. No.50 of 2006 -4- 3. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned judgment can be set aside and the RCP can be remanded to the Rent Control Court giving opportunity to the landlady to amend her pleadings suitably. 4. It is brought to our notice that the building in question is situated near to the Kannur Bus Stand and that the rent which is being paid by the tenant who is practising his profession as architect in a very successful manner is only Rs.150/-. According to Mr.Premchand, if the building is let out today the same will fetch at least Rs.2,500/- per month. Sri.Kelu Nambiar, the learned senior counsel would submit that it will not be just to fix the rent in this particular case since this Court is giving relief to the landlady by passing the order R. C. R. No.50 of 2006 -5- of remand and not to the tenant. 5. We strongly feel that the current rent of Rs.150/- paid by the respondent is too low having regard to the importance of the locality and the rent which is payable for similar buildings in the locality. Hence, even as we are relegating the matter back to the Rent Control Court, we are inclined to re-fix the rent giving right to both sides to approach the Rent Control Court by filing regular applications under Section 5 if they are aggrieved. 6. The result of the above discussion therefore is as follows:- The judgment of the Appellate Authority is set aside. RCP.177/97 is remanded to the Rent Control Court, Kannur. That court is directed to R. C. R. No.50 of 2006 -6- permit the landlady to amend her pleadings suitably. If the landlady's pleadings are amended opportunity will be given to the tenant also to raise counter pleadings. Once the pleadings are completed as directed above, the case will be posted for evidence. Both sides will be permitted to adduce whatever further evidence they want to and revised order will be passed on the basis of the entirety of evidence which comes on record. 7. We re-fix the monthly rent payable by the respondent with effect from 01/07/10 at Rs.1,000/- per mensem. We make it clear that this re-fixation is tentative and will be subject to right of either party to move the Rent Control Court for fixation of fair rent under Section 5. The Rent Control Court is directed to expedite matters R. C. R. No.50 of 2006 -7- and ensure that the revised order is passed at the earliest. 8. The RCR is thus allowed by way of remand. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-