IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RCRev..No. 70 of 2003() ----------------------- RCA.63/1998 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.82/1997 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------- SUKUMARAN, T.C.4/980, SUKU AUTOS, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.PANGAPPARA K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ FATHIMA MALIK MOHAMMED, 'GEM' TAGORE GARDENS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.C.Rev. No. 70 of 2003 F/B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for time to argue the revision. But, we notice that the order of eviction is passed on the ground of arrears of rent. The contract rent is only Rs.350/- per month. We notice that the revision petitioner/ tenant is carrying on business under the name and style Suku Auto in the petition schedule building situated in Kawdiar in Thiruvananthapuram city. The Rent Control Court on the basis of the evidence came on record found that rent was in arrears as alleged by the landlord. The Appellate Authority reappraised the evidence and concurred with the above finding. The orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) are in a way only provisional orders, which are aways liable to be vacated, by making a requisite deposit under Section 11(2)(c). We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the decision concurrently taken by the authorities below warranting invocation of the RCR.70/03 : 2 : revisional jurisdiction. We confirm the judgments and dismiss the RCR. However, we grant the revision petitioner two months' time from today for getting the order of eviction vacated by making requisite deposits or payments under Section 11(2)(c). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the contract rent at Rs.350/- is excessive. We do not think so. We give liberty to either sides to move the Rent Control Court for fixation of fair rent. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) aks RCR.70/03 : 3 : PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. `````````````````````````````````````````````` R.C.Rev. No. 70 of 2003 F/B `````````````````````````````````````````````` O R D E R 4th day of December, 2009