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 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 RCRev..No. 143 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.34/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE RCP.10/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT/PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER (S): (RESPONDENTS IN RCA/RESPONDENTS IN IA 4963/2009 & PETITIONERS IN RCP 10/2008): --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, MANATHANATH HOUSE, FEORKE AMSOM, NELLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. MANATHANATH SHAKEER, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, -DO- 3. MANANTHANATH BASHEER, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, -DO- 4. MANATHANATH KHADER, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MANATHANANTH MUHAMMED, S/O.KHADER HAJI, FEROKE PO.AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): (APPELLANT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN IA 4963/2009 & RESPONDENT IN RCP 10/2008): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.S.SUBRAHMANIAN, SECRETARY, KALAMANDIR, FEORKE,AGED 58, S/O.SAMI, RESIDING AT ANAMIKA HOUSE,FEROKE P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN - 673 001. BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN, SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- R.C.R.No.143 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011. O R D E R PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the landlord is the judgment of the Rent Control Appeallate Authority, allowing the application submitted by the respondent/ tenant to set aside the exparte order of eviction passed against the respondents after condoning delay subject to a condition that a sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid as costs. According to Sri.Sethumadhavan learned counsel for the revision petitioner/land lord, the finding entered by the appellate authority is to the effect that the reason stated by the respondents for condoning the delay was not correct. Having so found, the learned appellate authority was not at all justified in allowing the application filed by the respondents. Smt.Letha learned counsel for the 2 R.C.R.No.143 of 2011 respondents submitted that, this Court may not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion of the Rent Control appellate authority which under the 'Statutory Scheme' is the final court on facts. According to her, the order does not suffer from any infirmity as contemplated by Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act. A substantial amount was imposed by way of costs. 2. Having considered the rival submissions and having gone through the impugned judgment of the appellate authority, we agree with the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. But we notice another aspect to the matter. The building is situated in a very important area of Feroke, not so far away from Kozhikode City. The monthly rent of Rs.70/- presently being paid by the respondents was fixed 3 R.C.R.No.143 of 2011 a long ago. The submission of Mr.Sethumadhavan was that, nowadays the building rents have escalated and atleast Rs.2,000/- per mensem is reasonable rent for this building. The above submission is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. We feel that the rent of Rs.70/- per mensem, presently paid is low. As another condition for sustaining the impugned judgment, we are inclined to add a further condition that the rent payable by the respondents will stand refixed w.e.f. 1.9.2011 at Rs.300/- per mensem. In other words, the impugned judgment will operate only if the respondents files an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within 3 weeks from today undertaking to pay rent to the revision petitioners @ Rs.300/- per mensem. If the Rent Control court notices such an affidavit, the court should proceed on that basis that the impugned judgment of the appellate authority has become operative. If affidavit is not noticed, it should proceed on the basis that the original order of 4 R.C.R.No.143 of 2011 the Rent Control court dismissing the petition to set aside the exparte order of eviction is revived. Accordingly, the R.C.R. is disposed of. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/