IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No. 24 of 2008 (A) ----------------------------- RCA.55/2006 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.97/2005 of ADDL.M.C.-I,KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- CHATHUKUTTY CHETTIAR, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. KOLANGARAKANDIYIL RAMAN CHETTIAR, RESIDING AT ELOTHKANDY, RAROTH AMSOM, VEZHUPOORE DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SMT.P.RANI DIOTHIMA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- HAJIRABI, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. KANHIRATHINGAL MUHAMMED KASIM, RAROTH AMSOM, VEZHUPOORE DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO FOR R1 SRI.M.R.MOUNEESH FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.24 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The tenant is in revision. He challenges the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the ground of bona fide own occupation under Section 11 (3). 2. We have heard the submission of Smt.C.G.Preetha, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Philip Antony Chacko, the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel have addressed very extensive arguments based on the grounds raised in the RCR and in support of the R. C. R. No.24 of 2008 -2- orders. We are not persuaded to hold, on the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is vitiated to the extent of warranting corrections invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20. At the same time, we find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that it will be extremely difficult for the revision petitioner to find alternate premises. When this aspect of the matter was pointed out to Sri.Philip Antony Chacko, he submitted that his client has become agreeable to let out room having Door No.T.P.IX/1261/I belonging to the landlady's family in the first floor of the very same larger building. The learned counsel for the petitioner R. C. R. No.24 of 2008 -3- submitted that the petitioner will be willing to take that room on lease from the respondent. 3. There is some controversy between the parties as to the rent payable by the petitioner for room having Door No.T.P.IX/1261/I. Mr.Philip Antony Chacko submitted that on the rooms on either side having same side, the landlady is getting Rs.1,500/- by way of monthly rent with Rs.50,000/- advance (Rs.2,000/- per month without advance). Mr.Philip Antony Chacko submitted that the respondent is ready to treat the revision petitioner as an ongoing tenant and therefore, will not insist on advance. But the petitioner should pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month without any amount as advance. Smt.Preetha, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- will be R. C. R. No.24 of 2008 -4- too high and is un-affordable for the revision petitioner. We feel that the current rent of Rs.820/- per month being paid for the building which is subject matter of the RCR is far below the fair and prevailing rent in the locality. We feel that building having Door No.T.P.IX/1261/I will fetch at least Rs.1,650/- per mensem if let out today. Accordingly, the result of the above discussion is therefore, as follows:- 1) The RCR is dismissed. 2) The execution court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the landlady unless and until the revision petitioner is inducted into room having Door No.T.P.IX/1261/I in the first floor of the larger building belonging to the landlady and members of her family subject to liability to pay rent for that room at the rate R. C. R. No.24 of 2008 -5- of Rs.1,650/- per mensem. 3) The revision petitioner will be liable to discharge arrears of rent, if any, which is due in respect of the building which is subject matter of the RCR before he is inducted into the new room. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-