IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2007 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1929 RCRev..No. 83 OF 2007() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18/11/2006 IN IA 167/2006 & RCA.51/2005 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY RCP.70/2001 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- M.E.ROSH,S/O.DASAN, RESIDING AT MINIS,OLD ROAD, KUTHUPARAMBA,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITITONERS ------------------------------------- 1. PADMALATHA,W/O.DR.V.BHARATHAN, RESIDING AT THIRUVANGAD AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.THIRUVANGAD,THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. B.SAJESH,S/O.DR.V.BHARATHAN, THIRUVANGAD,THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 6.3.2007, THE COURT ON 02/04/2007, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = = R.C.R. NO. 83 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2007. O R D E R Raman, J. The revision petitioner is a tenant and respondent in R.C.P. 70/2001 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thalassery. The above said petition was filed by the landlord seeking eviction under Section 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. On the question of arrears of rent, the tenant is stated to have set up a plea that he had paid the rent up to April, 2001 and the arrears claimed is not correct. But the Rent Control Court allowed eviction under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act, after repelling the contention of the revision petitioner. However, the bona fide need as alleged in the rent control petition was found to be not proved and the prayer for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was found against. 2. Against the order of the Rent Control Court, R.C.A. 51/2005 was filed by the tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery. The landlords filed an application under Section 12(1) as I.A. 167/2006 for a direction to the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent. He did not file any objection thereto and therefore, the plea as raised in the application RCR 83/2007 :2: remained unchallenged. He also did not pay the admitted arrears of rent. Hence the appeal was dismissed against which the present revision is filed. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the impugned order is a non speaking order and not in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 12(1) of the Act. 4. We have heard the learned counsel. As already noticed above, the application I.A. 167/2006 was filed by the landlord under Section 12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act seeking for a direction to pay the admitted arrears of rent. The order impugned in this revision shows that several adjournments were granted before passing the impugned order. In the absence of any challenge to the contention raised in the interlocutory application, petitioner herein cannot be heard to contend that there is no admitted arrears. Even though in the revisional memorandum there is a statement that the revision petitioner paid the arrears of rent during the pendency of the case before the Rent Control Court, no materials are placed in support thereof. At any rate, though he has a case that arrears of rent pursuant to the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court until the impugned order was passed, has been deposited by him, no documentary proof is produced along with the revisional memorandum. Therefore, this is a case where the admitted arrears of rent even subsequent to the order RCR 83/2007 :3: passed by the Rent Control Court is not proved to have been paid. 5. In the facts and circumstances, when several adjournments were made so as to enable the revision petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent and when no such deposit is made, we find no error in the order passed by the appellate court in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non deposit of arrears of rent. We find no merits in this revision. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) ANTONY DOMINIC, (JUDGE) knc/-