IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 181 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.26/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR RCP.16/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------ ABY, S/O.JACOB, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR THALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/ORIGINAL PETITIONER: ------------------- KOCHURANI, W/O.URUMEES, THALIYATH HOUSE, PUTHANPALLY MURI, VARAPUZHA VILLAGE, PARAVOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.181 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 O R D E R --------------- Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b) of Act 2 of 1965. The rental arrangement pleaded by the landlord is not disputed in the sense that the monthly contract rent of Rs.7,350/- per mensem is not disputed. The allegation of the landlord was that rent is in arrears from 1.4.2007 and that as on date of issuance of the statutory demand notice a sum of Rs.1,39,910/- is due. The tenant/revision petitioner filed objections raising various contentions. The sum and RCR.181/2010 2 substance of the contention is that the allegation regarding arrears is not correct and that the landlord did not issue receipts even after having received rent from the tenant as and when the same fell due. Apart from the oral evidence adduced by the parties, tenant/revision petitioner relied mostly on Ext.B1 rent payment entry book. This was a self-serving document. Of course, the above document contained a signature apparently put by the landlord. The genuineness of the above signature was stiffly disputed by the landlord. The Rent Control Court was not very much impressed by the purported signature of landlord on Ext.B1. The Rent Control Court took the view that the tenant has the obligation to prove that he has discharged the entire arrears of rent and accordingly passed an order of eviction under Section 11 (2)(b). The Appellate Authority by the judgment confirming the order of Rent Control Court referred to Section 9 of the Act which provides for the procedure to RCR.181/2010 3 be adopted by a tenant whose landlord is unwilling to issue receipts for the rent that is actually paid. The Appellate Authority holds rightly that Ext.B1, the genuineness of which is disputed seriously, cannot be accepted at any rate as a rent receipt as envisaged by Section 9. Ultimately concurring with the learned Rent Control Court the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner was dismissed. 2. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Sri.Santhoshkumar addressed strenuous arguments based on those grounds. According to him, the appreciation of the evidence by the statutory authorities was erroneous and this was resulted an injustice. We are unable to agree. Having appreciated Ext.B1 document ourselves, we do not find reason to disagree with the Rent Control Court's view about that RCR.181/2010 4 document. Plea of discharge is a plea to be substantiated by the party raising pleadings. Section 9 of the Rent Control Act provides a remedy for the tenant whose landlord is unwilling to issue receipts for the rent actually paid. According to us, the view taken in this case, both by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, is not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. 3. The result is that the RCR will fail and will stand dismissed. However, in view of the totality of the circumstances which attained on this case we feel that a period of two months can be granted to the revision petitioner for getting the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) vacated by filing appropriate application under Section 11(2)(c). The learned Appellate Authority has in fact recognized the above statutory right of the tenant and has indicated that the Rent Control Court while considering application under Section 11(2)(c) will RCR.181/2010 5 give due credit for all payments evidenced by records made during the pendency of the RCP. We reiterate the above direction and grant to the revision petitioner two months time from today. 4. We are informed that the execution court has already ordered delivery and that unless this court stays the order of delivery the petitioner stands the risk of being dispossessed tomorrow itself. Considering the above submissions we have today passed a separate order in I.A.1682/2010 which is an application for stay filed by the revision petitioner. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb