IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No. 161 of 2010 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2010 IN IA 705/2010 IN RCA.9/2010 of DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM RCOP.2/1996 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER-PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR.P.T.SANTHOSH BABU,AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.O.THOMAS VAIDYAN,JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW,PUNALUR,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------ JAYABHARATHAM NURSING HOME(PVT)LTD, PUNALUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.P.T.RAJAN BABU,AGED 63,S/O.LATE P.O.THOMAS VAIDYAN,RESIDING AT JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, ERUMAPETTI,ARAMPUNNA,PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.161 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on an application for stay of execution submitted by the petitioner/ tenant. The eviction order which was impugned by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was an order under Section 11(2)(b). The learned Appellate Authority became inclined to pass stay only on condition that the petitioner/appellant furnishes security for the arrears of rent as found by the Reference Court. Sri.G.Ram Mohan, the R. C. R. No.161 of 2010 -2- learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the imposition of such a condition was not warranted in the present case where the jural relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant was seriously in dispute. According to Sri.Ram Mohan, the person who represents the landlord/company and the revision petitioner are direct brothers. It is not on the basis of any rental arrangement that the revision petitioner was permitted to occupy the building. Instead the revision petitioner himself is a Director of the landlord/company. Since there is serious dispute between the parties as to the jural status of the revision petitioner, imposition of the present condition was not all justified. 2. We are not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ R. C. R. No.161 of 2010 -3- appellant. We find that the question as to whether the revision petitioner is a tenant as alleged by the landlord in the building in question was decided by the Rent Control Court on the basis of an elaborate enquiry. It was found that the revision petitioner is a tenant who took the building on lease on the basis of a rent chit which was marked in evidence as Ext.A1. It may be possible for the revision petitioner to convince the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the finding entered by the Reference Court regarding the jural status of the revision petitioner is wrong. As matters obtain now, there is a finding and consequential eviction order against him. If the Appellate Authority thought that the eviction order can be stayed only by imposing conditions we feel that this is an instance of the Appellate Authority R. C. R. No.161 of 2010 -4- exercising its discretion. We are not inclined to say that the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the matter of granting stay was erroneous. 3. The revision will stand dismissed in limine. However, we direct the Rent Control Appellate Authority to give top priority to RCA.9/10 and dispose of the same in accordance with law at his earliest. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-