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 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 3177 of 2001(F) ----------------------- RCA.106/1998 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.148/1996 of PRL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-II .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1.A. RADHA, W/O. SREENIVASAN, 50 YEARS. 2. SREESAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SREENIVASAN. 3. DEEPA, AGED 22 YEARS, D/O. 4. SREEJA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. DO. 5. K.M.SANTHOSH,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. CHANDUKUTTY. ALL RESIDING AT PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUDHISH. R SMT.MANJU SUDHISH RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/PETITIONER: --------------- DR.NADACHERI KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O. GOVINDAN, AGED 58 YEARS, MANJERI, MALAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.M.ANDREWS FOR R THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.3177 OF 2001 ------------------------ Dated this the 14thday of September, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants impugn in this CRP under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed against them under sub section (3) of Section 11 in reversal of the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the RCP. The need projected by the respondent landlord, a dentist, was that he wants to start his clinic in the petition schedule room as well as in the adjacent rooms. The present revision petitioners are legal heirs of the original tenant, who was a barber carrying on his trade in the building. The bona fides of the claim and the need was attacked by the revision petitioners mainly pointing out that the respondent is conducting a clinic at Manjeri by name 'Swathi Dental Clinic'. The contention of the respondent was that Swathi Dental Clinic at Manjeri does not CRP.No.3177/2001 2 belong to him and that it is a clinic conducted by another dentist and that he is only a paid employee. The notification issued by the respondent in the Mathrubhoomi Daily (Ext.B4) was relied on by Sri.Sudhish, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, to argue that the landlord's version that he is only paid employee of Swathi Dental Clinic is false. Considering the seriousness of the disputes between the parties on these issue we, on 7/9/2009, passed the following order: “The respondent/landlord is directed to produce documents which will establish that he is only a paid employee of Swathi Dental Clinic, Manjeri and that the said Dental Clinic belongs to another person. Post on 14/9/2009 finally.” 2. Today, Sri.C.M.Andrews, learned counsel for the respondent has placed before us photostat copy of the lease deed which has been executed between the tenant and the landlord in respect of the premises where Swathi Dental Clinic is being conducted at Manjeri. The lease deed shows that K.T.Sudhira, CRP.No.3177/2001 3 the wife of the first respondent, herself is the tenant. We are convinced, on a reading of the above lease deed and Ext.B4 conjointly, that the version of the landlord that he is a paid employee of Swathi Dental Clinic is absolutely wrong and that the landlord is conducting his own clinic at Manjeri. It was noticing the connection of the respondent/landlord with Swathi Dental Clinic at Manjeri that the learned Rent Control Court dismissed the RCP. According to that court, whether it be as owner or as employee the first respondent is already engaged at Manjeri and hence his need to come over to Calicut for conducting dental clinic in the petition schedule building cannot be bona fide. We are unable to endorse the above reasoning the Rent Control Court. But, now it has become clear that the respondent is conducting his own dental clinic at Manjeri. we are of the view that the pleadings in the RCP, being what they are, the respondent/landlord cannot aspire for an order of eviction under sub section (3) of Section 11 against the revision petitioners. 3. Sri.C.M.Andrews, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the son of the first respondent is an ophthalmologist and that even he may need to occupy the CRP.No.3177/2001 4 petition schedule building for conducting clinic or consultancy. We would have been inclined to accept this submission. But there is total absence of pleadings regarding this aspect of the matter. We do not think that it will be fair to permit the respondent to amend the pleadings at this stage so as to incorporate the need of the son, since such permission is likely to cause prejudice to the revision petitioners. Moreover, it is always open to the respondent/landlord to file a fresh Rent Control Petition invoking the need to accommodate his dependent son and invoking all other grounds which are available to the respondent for evicting the revision petitioners. 4. The rent, which is being paid by the revision petitioners for the petition schedule premises at Rs.50/- per month, was fixed years ago. Having regard to the importance of the locality and the rent prevailing in the locality, we feel that the above rent is ridiculously low. Taking that aspect of the matter into account, we tentatively refix the rent payable by the revision petitioners to the respondent at Rs.500/- per month with effect from 1st October 2009. With effect from that date, the revision petitioners shall pay the rent at the above rate. We make it clear that the CRP.No.3177/2001 5 above fixation is only tentative and is subject to the right of the parties to move the competent civil court to have the fair rent of the building fixed in accordance with law. 5. The result of the above discussion is, therefore, as follow; Setting aside the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and restoring the order of the Rent Control Court, we dismiss this rent control petition. C.R.P. is allowed as above. However, we permit the respondent to file fresh rent control petition on all available grounds under the statute. The revision petitioners shall pay the rent with effect from 1st October 2009 to the respondent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. 6. It is submitted by Sri.C.M.Andrews that after 1/12/1996, the revision petitioners have not paid any amount to the respondent towards rent. This submission is disputed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. We, however, direct the revision petitioners to pay the entire arrears of rent, which CRP.No.3177/2001 6 has fallen due in respect of the petition schedule building after 1/12/1996 less any amount paid by them after that date to the respondent within a period of one month from today. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk CRP.No.3177/2001 7 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.3177 OF 2001 ------------------------ O R D E R 14th September, 2009