IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 RCRev..No. 386 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.10/2006 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM RCP.11/2005 of RENT CONTROLLER, KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, SON OF CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 42, THAZHAVILA VEEDU, MUKATHALA CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAJ,K.J. SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ----------------------- NISHA MATHAIKUTTY, W/O.MATHAIKUTTY, KARUMALAKIZHAKKATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU, KUZHIMATHIKAD CHERRY, KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.3129/2006 IN RCR.NO.386/2006 DISMISSED SD/= K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. 24.3.2008. SD/= P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ cl K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- R.C.R.NO.386 OF 2006-C -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008. O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner is the tenant. The rent controller passed an order under Section 12 directing to deposit the arrears of rent within one month and also to deposit the rent due in future within two weeks from the due date. The tenant appealed. The appellate authority declined to interfere with the said order. Challenging those orders, this revision is filed. Though initially there was a stay, later it was modified directing the revision petitioner to deposit the entire arrears before the Rent Control Court as on 30..6.2007. But, there was a direction that the question of disbursement of the same to the landlord will be considered later. Pursuant to that order, the tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that the matter may be remitted to the rent control court for early disposal of the same. The learned counsel for the tenant disputes the title of the landlord. Therefore, the direction to pay the future rent is unjustified, it is submitted. RCR.No.386/2006 . 2 2. We feel that a direction not to release the rent to the landlord, until the preliminary point regarding denial of title is decided, will safeguard the interest of both sides. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of directing the rent controller to proceed with the trial of the R.C.P. The denial of title may be decided as expeditiously as possible as a preliminary point. Release of the rent deposited will depend upon the result of consideration of that point. R.C.R is disposed of as above. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl RCR.No.386/2006 . 3