IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCRev..No. 177 of 2009() --------------------------------- RCA.6/2006 of ADDL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. RCP.40/2004 of RENT CONTROL (PRL.MUNSIFF) COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT :- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LATHAKUMARI, W/O.RATNAKAR RAO, RISHIKESAM FROM VELEEPARAMBIL, CMC 15, CHERTHALA NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :- ----------------------------------------------------------------- NARAYANA PAI, S/O.GOVINDA PAI, HOUSE NO.32/1989-A, NETHAJI ROAD, KOCHI CORPORATION, PADIVATTOM DESOM, EDAPPALLY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, FROM KALADIKANDATHIL, CHERTHALA NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt RCRev..No. 177 of 2009 ORDER ON I.A.No.2382 OF 2009 IN R.C.R.No.177 OF 2009 Dismissed. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. 28.2.2011 //True Copy// P.A. to Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 177 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. O R D E R Balkrishnan,J. Under challenge in this revision is the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The landlord contended that the revision petitioner has kept the rent in arrears which is payable at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month. A notice was sent under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Though intimation was given by the postman, the revision petitioner did not turn up to receive the notice and hence the notice was returned. Thereafter, the RCP was filed. 2. The revision petitioner filed objection to the rent control petition stating that the rate of rent payable is R.C.R. NO. 177 OF 2009 -:2:- Rs.600/- and that the rent was sent by money order and that no rent was kept in arrears. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the monthly rent payable by the tenant is Rs.3,000/- and that the rent was kept in arrears as mentioned in the RCP. The Appellate Authority after re-appreciating the evidence endorsed the view taken by the learned Rent Controller and thus, the appeal was dismissed. 3. In this revision, the revision petitioner has contended that the courts below have gone wrong in accepting the case of the landlord that the monthly rent payable was Rs.3,000/-. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has also submitted that there was no proper notice as contemplated under the proviso to S.11(2)(b) since the address furnished in the notice is different from the address shown in the RCP. R.C.R. NO. 177 OF 2009 -:3:- 4. Ext.A4, the rent agreement would show that the monthly rent payable was Rs.3,000/-. According to the tenant he had been paying rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. But the Court below found that even as per the rent receipt issued to the tenant the rate shown was Rs.3,000/- per month. The contention that the amount of Rs.3,000/- shown in the receipt was the rent for five months was not accepted by the Court below for valid reasons. The tenant could not produce any receipt showing the monthly rent at Rs.600/-. In the teeth of those documents the Courts below came to the right conclusion that the monthly rent payable by the revision petitioner was Rs.3,000/-. 5. The only other ground which has been seriously pressed into service by Sri.Gracious Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that Ext.A1 notice was not sent in the correct address and as such the notice is bad. Ext.A2 is the returned notice R.C.R. NO. 177 OF 2009 -:4:- which shows that the intimation was given to the revision petitioner but he did not turn up to receive that notice. The contention that the address shown in Ext.A2 is not the address shown in the RCP was well explained stating that even according to the tenant she shifted the residence only in 2004. The rent control petition was filed in 2004 whereas Ext.A2 notice was sent in October 2003 in the former address. This aspect was also considered by the learned Rent Controller in detail. We find no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the finding so entered by the Courts below. Admittedly the rent as mentioned in the RCP was not paid by the revision petitioner and hence the order of eviction passed by the authorities below is only to be confirmed. 6. In the result the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. R.C.R. NO. 177 OF 2009 -:5:- Sri. Gracious Kuriakose, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that sufficient time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the petition schedule building. Considering all the aspects we grant six months time to the revision petitioner to get the order of eviction passed u/s 11(2)(b) vacated. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/-