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 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 2720 of 2002() ---------------------- RCA.48/1996 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.24/1990 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): (SUPPL.APPLTS 2 TO 5/LEGAL REP. OF 1ST RESPONDENT) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAMMAL 2. RAJASEKHARAN 3. RADHAKRISHNAN. 4. RENUKA DEVI. THE REVISION PETITIONER NO.1 IS THE WIFE AND THE REVISION PETITIONERS NOS.2 TO 4 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE PARAMESWARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 17/201, K.A.V.ROAD, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.JOJI VARGHESE SRI.M.HARISHARMA SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT) -------------------------------------------------------- *1. SEBASTIAN ALIAS MANICKAN,S/O.SWAMINATHAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT 17/191, K.A.V.ROAD, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK.(DIED. ADDL. RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED) *2. T.S.ARULSWAMI, S/O.SWAMINATHAN PILLAI, C/O.MR.REMONTH JOHN BAPTIST, M/S.ASHOK AUTO AGENCY, FIVE ROADS, SALEM, TAMIL NADU.(DIED. ADDL.RESPONDENTS IMPLEADED) (...2) CRP.2720/02 2 *ADDL.R3. RAJAMMAL, W/O.SEBASTIAN @ MANICKAN, R/AT 2/192, K.A.V.ROAD, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR TALUK. ADDL.R4. ALEXANDER S/O.-DO- ADDL.R5. THOMAS S/O.-DO-. ADDL.R6. AROGYASWAMI, S/O.-DO-. ADDL.R7. MARY JOHN, D/O.-DO- ADDL.R8. ROSELINE, D/O.-DO- ADDL.R9. RAJINA MARY, D/O.-DO- (ADDL.R3 TO 9 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT.9/10/09 IN I.A.283/09) *ADDL.R10. VINCENT PREMDASS, S/O.T.S.ARULSWAMY FIVE ROADS, SALEM, TAMIL NADU. ADDL.R11. REMU @ JOHN, S/O. -DO- ADDL. R12. PRINCY D/O.-DO- (ADDL.R10 TO 12 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT.23/7/10 IN I.A.1779/10) ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR ADL.3,4,5,6,8&9 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR ADDL.R3,4,5,6,8 & 9 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR ADDL.R3,4,5,6,8 & 9 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR ADDL.R3,4,5,6,8 & 9 SRI.A.R.NIMOD FOR ADDL.R3,4,5,6,8 &9 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR ADDL.R3,4,5,6,8 & 9 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- C.R.P. No.2720 of 2002 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010 O R D E R ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 by the tenant is a summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of Act 2 of 1965 and the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming that summary order of eviction. The judgment of the Appellate Authority is assailed in this revision by the tenant on various grounds. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the submissions of Sri.Jibu P.Thomas, learned counsel for the landlord. We have gone through the records of this case. We do not find any infirmity, illegality or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 tainting the impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. At the same time we notice that as on 17.1.1996, when the impugned summary order of eviction under Section CRP.2720/02 2 12(3) was passed by the Rent Control Court, a total amount of Rs.5,252/- inclusive of payments to the local authorities towards property tax had been deposited by the tenant as against an admitted amount of Rs.5,100/- which was payable by him till 17.1.1996. But then we find that these deposits were made beyond the time granted by the statutory authorities and hence the deposits alone will not enable the revision petitioner to have summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) vacated. Summary order of eviction unlike orders under Section 11(2)(b) are not liable to be vacated by making deposits. 3. The statutory authorities under the Rent Control Act are expected to be governed by equity, justice and good conscience while deciding costs. [See Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules 11(8)]. We notice that for the petition schedule building which is situated in Chittoor Muncipality having 3 rooms with kitchen etc. the rent of Rs.50/- per mensem was fixed in the year 1968. According to us, the above rent is ridiculously low. Therefore we are of the view that considering the fact that the deposits as indicated were made by the revision petitioner, he can be given relief CRP.2720/02 3 provided landlord is also given relief by reasonable enhancements in the rent which is payable by the revision petitioner. Result of the above discussion is as follows: The impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court passed under Section 12 (3) will stand set aside subject to re-fixation of the contract rent from 1.1.1990 till 1.1.2000 at Rs.200/- per mensem and further re-fixation of the contract rent from 1.1.2000 till 1.1.2010 at Rs.400/- per mensem and further re-fixation with effect from 1.1.2010 at Rs.500/- per mensem. This means that revision petitioner will have to deposit Rs.63,150/- (Rupees Sixty three thousand one hundred and fifty only) as arrears of rent and will have to pay with effect from 1.1.2010 rent at the rate of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only). If the above sum of Rs.63,150/- is paid within six months from today, and the first revision petitioner files an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to pay rent at Rs.500/- per mensem within one month from today the impugned order of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority will stand set aside. Thereupon the RCP will be posted by Rent Control Court for enquiry and CRP.2720/02 4 will be enquired into on its merits and orders will be passed on the basis of the evidence that comes on record. If, however, conditions stipulated above are not complied with, the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority will stand confirmed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb