IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No. 151 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.147/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, VADAKARA RCP.82/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- M.V.RADHA, KOYAPURATH HOUSE NO. 23/1077, (OLD NO.25/356), KACHERIKUNNU, POKKUNNU, KOZHIKODE-13. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- SUHARA, D/O MOIDEEN HAJI, FARHATH MANZIL, MELADI AMSOM, KUNNAMKULAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.151 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision and she impugns the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority concurrently on the ground of arrears of rent. There was serious dispute between the parties as to the contract rent whether it is Rs.1,000/- per month or Rs.500/- per month. The written agreement between the parties discloses the contract rent as Rs.1,000/- per month. But the defence of the tenant was that the tenant agreed to pay Rs.1000/- on the assurance by the landlord that the building will be repaired and maintained by the landlord properly. According to the tenant, since the landlord went back on the assurance to repair the building, she is liable to pay only the original rent of Rs.500/-. 2. The above contention was repelled by the authorities below mainly relying on the document of lease Ext.A1. We are of the view that when terms of a tenancy is covered by an instrument in writing, the principal document to be looked into RCR.No.151/2008 2 to decide the dispute between the parties as to what are the terms, is that very instrument itself. In the teeth of Ext.A1, any amount of oral evidence could not have been of much avail. We do not find any warrant for interfering with the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 of the Act to upset the findings of the Rent Control Court regarding the contract rent based on the document of lease. The Revision Petition, accordingly, will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk