IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 RCRev..No. 354 of 2007 -------------------------------- RCA.24/2006 OF THE DIST JUDGE, COURT,KOLLAM RC(OP) 9/2004 OF PRL. RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM ......................................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHRISTY FERNANDEZ, MADURA MANDIRAM, NEAR ASAN MADOM, UDAYAMARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SAIJU CHRISTY, MADURA MANDIRAM, NEAR ASAN MADOM, UDAYAMARTHANDAPURAM CHERRY, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ 1. K.P.RAJAN, AGED 64 YEARS, VELLASSERIL VEEDU, MULLASSERI PIPE LINE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. 2. RAJAMANI, AGED 61 YEARS, KAILAS HOUSE NO.32, PANACHIMOODU LANE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.R. RAJESH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ========================== R.C.R.No.354 of 2007 ======================== Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair,J. The revision petitioners were the respondents in B.R.C.O.P.No.9 of 2004. The landlords filed an application under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking a direction to the tenants to deposit the entire arrears of rent. An order was passed as prayed for by them. Since the petitioners - tenants failed to deposit the amount in terms of the order under Section 12 of the above Act, the B.R.C.O.P. was allowed without trying the case on merits. The eviction was ordered straightaway. The petitioners appealed and the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this revision challenging the appellate order. 2. As per the directions of this Court, the petitioners claim that they have deposited the entire arrears of rent. But the RCR 354/07 -: 2 :- learned counsel for the respondents point out that interest due on the arrears of rent is also to be deposited. It is also pointed out that the interest forms part of the arrears of rent. 2. Having regard to the facts that the Rent Control Petition was allowed without trial and admittedly substantial portion of the rent has already been deposited, we feel that the petitioners should be given a chance to contest the case on merits. 3. Accordingly, the orders of the courts below are set aside. The Rent Controller shall take on file the Rent Control Petition and hear and dispose of the same on merits. The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller on 7.2.2008. The Rent Controller is directed to compute the amount due from the petitioners towards arrears of rent which will include interest and upon such computation, the petitioners shall pay the same within one month. Needless to say, if the amount of arrears as directed by the Rent Controller is not deposited within the said time limit, then this judgment will stand recalled. If the landlords move for early hearing of the Rent Control Petition, the Rent Controller shall consider the same having regard to the pendency of the Rent Control Petitions before him. The respondents (land lords) RCR 354/07 -: 3 :- will be free to move for withdrawing the arrears of rent deposited before the Rent Controller. The R.C.R. is allowed as above. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 3/1