IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5522 of 2010(M) ------------------------- RP.2508/2009 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.N.SAGAR, S/O. NANU, SREEKOVIL, PANANGADU, VALANCODE, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MUBARAK BEEVI, W/O. BABU MUTHUMEERAN, HOUSE NO.128, CREMPETTA, SANTI NAGAR-1, CHENNAI, REP.BY THE ALLEGED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, IBRAHIM SHERIF, S/O. A.S.M.SHAH, SHAW MANZIL, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.C.No. 5522 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 24 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner/tenant has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking the following directions; i). Issue a direction to the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose of Ext.P4 and P5 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. ii). Direct the Munsiff court, Punalur to adjourn the execution proceedings in RCP 3/2001 till the disposal of Ext.P4. 2. Ext.P4 is an application filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority seeking review of the judgment of that Authority dismissing the Rent Control Appeal and Ext.P5 is an application seeking condonation of the delay caused in the matter. The case of the petitioner is that against Ext.P1 judgment of this court, he preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed by the Supreme WPC.No.5522/2010 2 Court only on 26/10/2009. Within a month thereafter a sum of Rs.3000/-, which this court had ordered as cost for the respondent, was paid to the Advocate for the respondent in this court as will be clear from Ext.P3 memo. But, we notice that under Ext.P1, we have imposed further condition that the tenant shall discharge the arrears of rent, which had fallen due, at the rate of Rs.350/- from 13/3/2000 till the date of the judgment and thereafter he shall pay at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. These two conditions have concededly not been complied with. 3. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.T.Rajesh was that without knowing about the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, the learned District Judge dismissed the RCA. This was why Ext.P4 review petition had to be filed. Sri.Rajesh would submit that the petitioner will not have any difficulty in complying with all the conditions imposed by this court in Ext.P1. 4. Sri.S.Mohammed Haneef, learned counsel for the respondent, would very strongly opposed granting any relief to the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been grossly negligent in the matter of prosecuting the WPC.No.5522/2010 3 appeal and his defence. 5. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar, we feel that the petitioner can be given the benefit of Ext.P1 judgment, which has been approved by the Supreme Court also, on imposition of stringent conditions. Calculating the arrears of rent due as on today as per Ext.P1 and also interest at the statutory rate of 6% per annum, the total amount due from the petitioner will come to Rs.43,500/-. We feel that the petitioner should be directed to pay that amount apart from cost to the respondent and High Court Legal Services Committee. 6. The result of the above discussion is, therefore, as follows; The writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. 1). Ext.P5 application for condonation of delay pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority will stand allowed and the Appellate Authority will entertain Ext.P4 application for review subject to the following conditions; i). The petitioner pays a sum of Rs.43,500/- towards arrears of rent and interest as indicated herein above WPC.No.5522/2010 4 to the respondent either directly or through the respondent's counsel before the Rent Control Appellate Authority within seven days from today and produce receipt before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. ii). The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- as cost to the respondent either directly or through the respondent's counsel in this court within the same time limit. iii). The petitioner shall pay a further amount of Rs.1,500/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within the same time limit. 2). Receipts against payment of item Nos. (ii) & (iii) will also be produced before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 3). Once the Rent Control Appellate Authority finds that payments have been made on time, Ext.P4 will be entertained and thereupon the same will be heard and disposed of in WPC.No.5522/2010 5 accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within one month of Ext.P4 being entertained. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk