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 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 RCRev..No. 304 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.15/2011 of I ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.6/2010 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT (RCC),TRIVANDRUM ................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & APPLICANT --------------------------------- NIZAMUDEEN, S/O. MOHAMMED KASIM, ASEENA MANZIL, CHEMPAKAMANGALAM, KORANI POST, ATTINGAL VIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. ROSHNABAI.K.M, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.K.V. ABDUL NAZAR, RAMLAS, THANA ROAD, KANNUR. 2. ASMA.V.K, D/O.V.K. SHARAFUDEEN NAAZ, PERINGADI POST, NEW MAHI - 673 312. 3. SUMIJA, D/O.M.P. KHADAR, WHITE HOUSE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, AZHIYOOR.P.O, CALICUT, NOW RESIDING AT T.C 1666/1, SREECHITHRA NAGAR, PANGODE, THIRUMALA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY ADVS. SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY SRI.M.FATHAHUDEEN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ R.C.R No. 304 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J: Under challenge in this revision by the landlord is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority disposing of an appeal preferred by the tenant and memorandum of cross objection submitted by the landlord in respect of order passed by the Rent control Court under Section 12 (1) of Act 2 of 1965 directing the tenant to pay the rent in arrears. In the impugned judgment the learned appellate authority has taken the view that as a plea of denial of the landlord's title had been taken by the tenant, it was obligatory on the part of the Rent Control Court to have enquire into the bonafides of the plea of denial before proceeding to pass orders under Section 12. Accordingly, the Rent Control Appellate Authority vacated the order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12 (1) of the Act. 2. Having gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate authority, we are of the view that impugned judgment cannot be said to be vitiated by illegally, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. We notice that respondent tenant admits his RCR No.304/2011 -2- status as tenant of the building. He will also does not dispute his liability to pay monthly rent ` 12,000/- per mensum in all months except Ramzan month. His only contention is that there is no landlord tenant relationship between him and the present revision petitioner. In the nature of the contentions raised, we feel that the impugned judgment of the appellate authority need be sustained only subject to acondition. The condition will be that the respondent tenant deposits before the court below within one month from today a total of ` 2,82,000/- being the rent which has admittedly fallen due in respect of the building after 18-02-2010 till date i.e. during the pendency of the proceedings. 3. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority will stand confirmed on condition that the respondents deposit ` 2,82,000/- before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram within one month from today. If deposit is not made, the judgment of the appellate authority will stand vacated and the order of the Rent Control Court revive. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge