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 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 261 of 2006 --------------------------- RCA.15/2000 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.99/1997 of ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN RCP --------------------------------------------------------------- S. LALEEDHARAN, S/O. N. SADASIVAN PILLAI T.C.28/2862 (1), SAHODARA SAMAJAN LANE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. R. BHADRAKUMAR, S/O. RAMAN PILLAI CHARTERD ACCOUNTANT, G.B.N. BUILDINGS, VACNHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GEETHA NAIR, W/O. R.BHADRAKUMAR, OF DO. DO. ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.261 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The petition schedule building is Room No.1 in a larger building belonging to the landlords. The petitioner's father was in occupation of the adjacent room having Door No.7. Under the impugned common judgment, the eviction order which had been passed by the Rent Control Court in respect of Room No.7 stands vacated. The learned Appellate Authority seems to be of the opinion that Room No.7 may be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the revision petitioner. R. C. R. No.261 of 2006 -2- According to the revision petitioner who is an Advocate by profession, the total area available in Room No.1 and 7 is just 100 sq. metres i.e. hardly sufficient for running his law chambers. In this Court, he has filed I.A.96/11. It is stated in the affidavit in support of the I.A. that subsequent to the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Room Nos.6 and 8 which were previously in occupation of one Sreedharan Nair and Advocate Francis fell vacant and the landlords have let out room No.6 to one Advocate R.Sankaran. It is asserted that Room No.8 continues to be under the vacant possession of the landlord. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the subsequent event of Room Nos.6 and 8 falling vacant and Room No.8 continuing to be under the vacant possession of the landlord has a fundamental impact on the landlord's right to evict the petitioner from the petition schedule building. We are not inclined to accept the various submission of the learned counsel for the revision R. C. R. No.261 of 2006 -3- petitioner straight away. However, we also feel that the subsequent events highlighted before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner if true can have some bearing on the landlord's right to evict the tenant from the petition schedule building. We are therefore, inclined to remit the issue back to the Rent Control Court. At the same time, we notice that the monthly rent which the petitioner pays for the building which is situated very near to the court complex at Thiruvananthapuram is far below the rent the building will fetch if the same is let out today. It is not disputed that the petitioner is in possession of not only the petition schedule building (room No.1) but also of the adjacent room No.7 which was originally in the possession of his father who is no more. We are therefore, inclined to re-fix the rent payable by the petitioner for both these rooms with retrospective effect from 01/02/11 at Rs.1,000/- per mensem. If either party is aggrieved it is open to them to move the Rent R. C. R. No.261 of 2006 -4- Control Court by appropriate application under Section 5 for regular fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is fixed petitioner shall be liable to pay rent for both these rooms at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensem. 2. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court are set aside. RCP is remanded to the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court will consider the implications of the subsequent events highlighted by the petitioner in I.A.96/11 in RCR 261/06 on the right of the landlord to evict the tenants. This is an open remand and the Rent Control Court is directed to take decision on all the points which arise on the pleadings raised by the parties. The parties will enter appearance before the court below on 17/02/11 and the Rent Control Court will complete the enquiry and pass the revised order within three months of the Civil Court re-opening after mid-summer vacation. R. C. R. No.261 of 2006 -5- Transmit Lower Court Records forthwith along with the original of I.A.96/11. The rent payable by the revision petitioner for the petition schedule room as well as room No.7 also in his occupation is fixed with effect from 01/02/11 at Rs.1,000/- each per mensem. We make it clear that the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court have been set aside only to the extent they pertain to RCP No.99/97. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-