IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 67 of 2004() ----------------------- RCA.9/2001 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA RCP.4/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/CR. PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- LEELAMMA, PARAYIL VEEDU, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ ALI AKBAR S/O. ABDUL REHMAN KUNJU, VAIDYANVEETTIL, KAYAMKULAM. (OWNER, SWARNAMAYOORI JEWELLERS, BAZAR ROAD, KAYAMKULAM) ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.67 OF 2004 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is the revision petitioner and she impugns the judgment of the rent control appellate authority vacating the summary order of eviction passed by the rent control court under Section 11(3) of the Act on the reason that the rent control court before passing the summary order had not issued show cause notice to the tenant for showing cause against the passage of the summary order. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.K.Harilal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner landlord and those of Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the respondent tenant. 3. Sri.Harilal would argue on the authority of the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Narayanan v. Vinod(2004 (3) KLT 955) that the view of the rent control appellate authority, that it is obligatory on the part of the rent control court to issue show cause notice specifically to the tenant before order of eviction is passed under Section 11(3), is wrong. According to RCR.No.67/2004 2 Sri.Harilal, the only requirement of law is that the tenant should have been afforded reasonable opportunity for showing cause against the summary order proposed to be passed. The learned counsel submitted that after passing the initial order directing the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent, the court had given as many as 17 postings to the tenant. It was only when it was noticed that no payment was made and that no cause was shown, that the rent control court passed the order, which was impugned before the appellate authority. Thereafter also two or three postings were given. Tenant never sought review of the eviction order showing any cause against the order. 3. Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant would resist the submissions of Sri.Harilal. According to him, there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 for correcting the judgment of the rent control appellate authority. According to him, impugned judgment does not suffer any irregularity, illegality or impropriety within the contours of Section 20 of the Act. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the RCR.No.67/2004 3 view that the learned appellate authority was not justified in insisting that specific show cause notice should have been issued by the rent control court giving opportunity to the tenant to show cause against the passage of summary order of eviction under Section 12(3). On surveying the proceedings paper, we find that more than sufficient opportunities were afforded to the tenant for showing cause against the passage of the summary order. In fact, even going by the pleadings raised by the tenant, rent was in arrears from January 1999. As for the rent, which fell due subsequent to the filing of the rent control petition, there was no scope for denial even. Thus arrears of rent as well as rent which fell due subsequently was admittedly due to the respondent landlord. Despite opportunities are given, the tenant had not paid the same nor had the tenant shown cause against summary order of eviction. The rent control appellate authority, in our view, was justified in passing the summary order of eviction which was impugned before the appellate authority. At the same time, on considerations of indulgence, we are not inclined to restore the order of summary eviction passed by the rent control court. We notice that the only ground of eviction, RCR.No.67/2004 4 which was invoked in the rent control petition, was arrears of rent. So the best which the landlord could have got by contesting rent control petition was an order of eviction under Section 11 (2) (b). Though a contention has been raised by the tenant in the statement of objection filed by him that he had paid the rent due up to January 1999, the said contention cannot hold water. We are of the view that the landlord's case that rent is in arrears from November 1997 stands established, since till this moment the tenant has not produced before the rent control court or the appellate authority or before this court any receipt which will substantiate his contention that he paid the amount up to January 1999. 5. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that setting aside the order of the rent control court as well as the judgment of the appellate authority, final order of eviction can be passed under Section 11(2)(b). Accordingly, we dispose of the rent control petition itself by passing order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) in favour of the revision petitioner and against the tenant finding that rent is in arrears from November 1997 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. It is needless to mention that if RCR.No.67/2004 5 the arrears of rent quantified as above together with interest at the statutory rate of 6% as per law is paid or deposited by the respondent within one month from today and if the respondent tenant files application under Section 11(2)(c) before the Rent control court, order of eviction passed as above will stand vacated. It is for the rent control court in that application to decide the correctness of the quantum of arrears actually due after adjusting payments if any made by the tenant during the pendency of the R.C.P. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk