IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 RCRev..No. 41 of 2010(D) ----------------------------- RCA.163/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.102/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT (RENT CONTROL), THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------- CHALIKKANDI PEEDIKAYIL IBRAHIM, S/O.KUNHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, VISWAS TRADERS, P.O.MOWACHERRY, ANJARAKKANDY ROAD, CHAKKATAKKALLU. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.T.P.ABDULLA, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 41 YEARS, BUSINESS, "FIRDOUS MANZIL", NEAR POLICE STATION, MOWACHERRY POST, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN FOR R1 SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & S. S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.41 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed under section 20 by the tenant is the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under section 12(3) of the Act and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the same. We have scanned the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.P.M.Pareeth, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed extensive arguments before us on the basis of the various grounds raised in the memorandum of the R. C. R. No.41 of 2010 -2- revision. 2. All the arguments of Mr.Pareeth were very stiffly resisted by Sri.M.V.Amaresan, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. 3. We notice that the procedure as envisaged by section 12 of Act 2 of 1965 has been strictly complied with by the Rent Control Court before it passed the order of eviction under section 12(3). The monthly rent at the admitted rate of Rs.1,500/- was in arrears admittedly from 01/05/2000. The Rent Control Court passed a direction as envisaged by section 12(1) to the revision petitioner/tenant to pay the arrears of rent admitted and also the rent which has fallen due subsequently. Reasonable time was given to the revision petitioner for payment. The tenant did R. C. R. No.41 of 2010 -3- not make the payment within the time initially granted. On several occasions, showing maximum indulgence to the petitioner/tenant, the court granted adjournments. Finally a peremptory order was passed directing payment of arrears of rent and also to show cause as to why summary order of eviction should not be passed. Even thereafter, the arrears of rent admitted was not discharged nor was any cause shown against passage of summary order. It is thereafter only, that the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction under section 12(3). The Rent Control Appellate Authority called for the records and became convinced that it is after complying with all the statutory formalities that the summary order of eviction was passed under section 12(3). R. C. R. No.41 of 2010 -4- 4. The argument of Mr.Pareeth was that subsequently i.e. during the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal and thereafter, substantial payments amounting to Rs.1,69,500/- has been paid during the pendency of the proceedings before the court below. It is trite that payment of amount after passage of summary order of eviction under section 12(3) will not result in that order getting vacated as in the case of regular orders of eviction under section 11(2)(b). Therefore, on the argument that rent is paid subsequently the impugned eviction orders cannot be vacated. 5. In this jurisdiction under section 20, we are called upon to examine whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety tainting the R. C. R. No.41 of 2010 -5- order of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. We have no doubt in our mind that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by section 20 tainting the order of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. 6. According to Mr.Amaresan even as on date a sum of Rs.63,000/- is due to the respondent/ landlord, and it cannot be claimed by the tenant that arrears of rent inclusive of statutory interest has been cleared by him as on date. Ordinarily we would have dismissed the RCR. But we notice that the only substantial eviction ground which was invoked by the respondent was that the ground under section 11(3). The authorities below were certainly justified in invoking the section 12 since section 12 is applicable notwithstanding the non- R. C. R. No.41 of 2010 -6- invocation of ground of arrears of rent for eviction. At the same time, we notice that the merits of the substantial ground under section 11(3) is yet to be considered by the authorities below. Mr.Amaresan submitted that the ground under section 11(3) projected in the RCP is a genuine ground and the landlord is therefore, optimistic of establishing that ground. That being so, we feel that some more indulgence can be shown to the revision petitioner and he can be allowed to resist the RCP on its merits. However, we are inclined to show indulgence only on very stringent terms. 7. The upshot of the above discussion, therefore, will be as follows:- The order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority under R. C. R. No.41 of 2010 -7- challenge will stand set aside and Rent Control Petition will stand posted for trial by the Rent Control Court in the special list subject to the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioner pays to the respondent a sum of Rs.63,000/- on or before 05/04/2010. 2) The revision petitioner shall pay monthly rent to the respondent with effect from 01/04/10 at Rs.3,000/- per mensem. We pass the above direction since we are of the view that having regard to the importance of the locality where the building is situated, the above amount can be tentatively fixed as the rent payable by the tenant. We make it clear that our fixation of the monthly rent payable by the R. C. R. No.41 of 2010 -8- revision petitioner at Rs.3,000/- is only tentative and if either of the parties are aggrieved, it is open to them to move the Rent Control Court with proper application under section 5 for regular fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent of the building is fixed, the revision petitioner/respondent will be bound to pay at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per mensem. Once the Rent Control Court notices that the above conditions are complied with/being complied with by the revision petitioner that court will special list the RCP for trial in the earliest available special list noticing the fact that the RCP is of the year 2000 and give top priority to the same and ensure that the RCP is tried and disposed of at the earliest, and at any rate, within one month of the trial commencing. It is needless R. C. R. No.41 of 2010 -9- to mention that if the revision petitioner does not comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, the impugned order and judgment will stand confirmed and the RCR will stand dismissed. We are accepting the version of the landlord that Rs.63,000/- is the amount due since it is by way of indulgence to the tenant that we are interfering with the impugned order and judgment despite our finding that there is no infirmity about the impugned order and judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE S. S. SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE kns/-