IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 RCRev..No. 222 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.47/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA RCP.38/2003 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------- R.SIDHARTHAN, S/O.K.C.RAGHAVAN RESIDING AT KAMALA NIVAS, CHERTHALA EAST MURI KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. VINODINI AMMA, W/O. SHANTHAPPAN,KARTHIKA NILAYAM, KOTTAMURI,THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. SARASAKUMARI AMMA, W/O.SREEDHARAN MANIMANDIRAM, KATTIKKUNNU MURI, POOTHOTHA, CHEMBU VILLAGE. 3. SUBHADRA AMMA, W/O.PARAMESWARAN, ALAKKODIYIL, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM. 4. REMADEVI, W/O. RAVEENDRAN,KANNANKULATHIL MULAMTHURTHY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.222 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 5thday of October, 2009 ORDER Surendra Mohan, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965. 2. According to the landlords, the shop room was taken on rent in 1993 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- and that the rent was enhanced to Rs.600/- from August 1999. The rent, according to the landlords, is remaining in arrears from November 2002. Though notice was issued demanding the arrears of rent, the same was not paid. The electricity supply in respect of the building was disconnected by the KSEB and an amount of Rs.1,676/- was recovered from the landlords as electricity charges due from the tenant. According to the landlords, the tenant was keeping the premises closed for more than 8 months prior to the filing of the Rent Control Petition. RCR.No.222/2009 2 3. The allegations of the landlords were disputed by the tenant. According to the tenant, the rent was being paid regularly to the second respondent's husband Sri.Sreedharan and thereafter the rent was paid to the petitioners 2 and 3 in the Rent Control Petition. According to him, from 10/7/2003, he was laid up with illness. The tenant also contended that from 5/10/2003 till 3/1/2004 he was undergoing treatment and was taking rest in his wife's house as advised by his doctor and that except during the said period, the shop room was not remaining closed. 4. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and RWs1 to 3 as well as Exts.A1 to A4 series, Ext.B1 and C1 series documents. On a detailed consideration of the evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the landlords/petitioners were entitled to an order of eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and cessation of occupation and therefore an order of eviction was passed under Section 11(2) (b) and 11(4)(v) of the Act. Though the landlords had put forward a claim for eviction under Section 11 (3), the same was disallowed. 5. The finding of the Rent Control Court was challenged by RCR.No.222/2009 3 the revision petitioner before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No. 47/2004. On a reappraisal of the evidence on record in the light of the rival contentions of the parties, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court. It is the said findings of the Authorities below that are assailed in this revision petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner at length. We have also anxiously considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner. We notice that the rent for the building is only Rs.600/- per month and that the allegation is that the rent is remaining in arrears from November 2002 onwards. The case of the tenant/revision petitioner is that the rent was being paid to the husband of one of the respondents. It is also the case of the revision petitioner that receipts were not be given. It is trite that it is the responsibility of the tenant to pay and continue to pay the rent in respect of the premises regularly. If no receipts were being issued by the landlord, it was the duty of the tenant to have paid the rent by money order of by cheque or by some other means, so that there would be evidence for payment of rent. In the absence of any RCR.No.222/2009 4 evidence for payment of rent, it has to be found that the tenant has not paid the rent in respect of the premises as stipulated in the agreement. 7. The contention of the landlords is that the building was remaining closed for more than eight months prior to the filing of the RCP. The Advocate Commissioner who inspected the premises on the orders of the court has reported that the building was remaining closed. The lock on the premises was found to be rusted. The Commissioner has also noted a notice pasted on the door of the premises by the KSEB demanding arrears of electricity charges and threatening disconnection. The contention of the tenant was that the landlords had locked the premises without any authority. The evidence of the neighbouring property owner, who has been examined as PW3, is also to the effect that the tenant was keeping the room locked for more than the statutory period. 8. On a consideration of the above items of evidence, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has found that the findings of the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act was also justified. We do not find any ground to interfere with the RCR.No.222/2009 5 concurrent findings of the Authorities below. Therefore, the Rent Control Revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the parties were relatives and that there was a possibility of working out an amicable settlement in the matter. We make it clear that the dismissal of this revision petition need not preclude the parties from pursuing their efforts to amicably settle the issues. The Execution Court shall also explore the possibility of working out a settlement among the parties before ordering actual delivery in the above case. 10. As his last submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested for the grant of sufficient time to vacate the premises. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that grant of time up to 30/4/2010 would meet the ends of justice. It is, therefore, ordered as follows; i). The Revision petitioner/tenant is granted time up to 30/4/2010 to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the landlords, RCR.No.222/2009 6 provided he files an affidavit within a period of one month from today before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlords on or before the said date. ii). The tenant shall pay up all arrears of rent due in respect of the tenanted premises and shall continue to pay the rent in respect of the premises at the contracted rate regularly till he surrenders vacant possession of the premises to the landlords. Iii). The landlords shall be free to execute the order of eviction passed in the above case in the event of default, on the part of the tenant, of any of the above conditions. RCR.No.222/2009 7 The Rent Control Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk