IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 RCRev..No. 7 of 2010() ---------------------- RCA.55/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY THRISSUR RCP.30/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ ABDULLA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MADATHIPARAMBIL KUNHUMUHAMMED, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- JAMEELA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.KALLIPARAMBIL MUHAMMED & W/O.ARAVASSERY KHADER, THALIKULAM VILLAGE, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.7 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 7 th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is in revision and he challenges the order of eviction concurrently passed against him on the ground of arrears of rent. The allegation of the landlord was that monthly rent at the rate of Rs.750/- is in arrears since 1/8/1998. The Rent Control Court, on the basis of the evidence, which consisted of the oral evidence of the landlady's husband as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 and Exts.B1 and B2 came to the conclusion that the rent was in arrears as alleged and accordingly passed order of eviction under Section 11 (2)(b). 2. The Rent Control Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with the conclusions of the Rent control Court. 3. In this revision under section 20, various grounds are raised and Sri.Rajit, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that earlier in 1998 the respondent had filed RCP 70/1998 (Ext.B1) alleging arrears of rent for a period of four RCR.No.7/2010 2 months from July 1998 to November 1998 and the eviction order, which was passed by the Rent Control Court in that case, was got vacated by making requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). The argument of the learned counsel was that the claim in the present RCP includes the rent for the above four months also. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is yet to be informed as to what exactly is the amount legally due from him and if that is made it known, he will not have difficulty in making payment of that amount and getting the order of eviction vacated under Section 11(2)(c). The learned counsel also submitted that during the pendency of the present proceedings total amount of Rs.33,000/- was paid. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The landlord-tenant relationship is not in dispute. So also the contract rent is also not in dispute. It is also not disputed before us that within fifteen days of receiving the statutory demand notice (Ext.A1), the tenant did not discharge the amount demanded there. Therefore, according to us, it was obligatory on RCR.No.7/2010 3 th part of the Rent Control Court to have passed order under Section 11 (2)(c). We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a portion of the rent in arrear is discharged even during the pendency of the present proceedings. It is also probable that a small portion presently found out to be in arrears was paid by the revision petitioner for getting the order of eviction passed in RCP 70/98 vacated. Whatever that be, it is for the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent(or to pay the amount) which is correctly due from him and seek cancelation of the order of eviction passed under section 11(2)(b) by invoking the provisions of Section 11(2)(c). Even as we confirm the order of eviction passed by the authorities below, we grant time to the revision petitioner till 15/2/2010 to make requisite deposits under Section 11 (2)(c). The Revision Petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk