IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 531 of 2005() ------------------------ RCA.39/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM RCP.8/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- 1. BHASKARA PILLAI, CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, KAILAS BHAVAN, CHEMPAKARA KARA, CHAMPAKARA P.O., KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.(*DIED. ADDL.P2 IMPLEADED) *ADDL.P2. SREEJA.C., W/O.ANILKUMAR, PANCHAMI, CHAMPAKARA POST, KARUKACHAL. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/CR.PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVAKUMARI @ KANAKAMMA, W/O.DECEASED V.K.THAMPY, KAVUMKAL HOUSE, VAZHOOR KARA, AND VILLAGE, VAZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. NIDHIN.K.THAMPY (MINOR). 3. NEETHU.K.THAMPY (MINOR), MINORS REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER, IST RESPONDENT. * ADDL.R4 & R5 ARE IMPLEADED: ADDL.R4. SURESH C.PILLAI, 15, LIFFEY TERRACE, LIFFEY VALLEY PARK, LUCAN, CO.DUBLIN, IRELAND. (...2) RCR.531/05 2 ADDL.R5. SAVITHRI AMMA.C.M., KAILAS BHAVAN,CHAMPAKARA POST, KARUKACHAL NOW RESIDING AT LIFFEY TERRACE, LIFFEY VALLEY PARK, LUCAN, CO.DUBLIN, IRELAND (FROM 13.9.2009 TO 9.12.2009) (* THE ADDL.P2 AND ADDL. R4 & 5 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 6.11.09 IN I.A. 2926/09) ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.K.P.SHAHUL HAMEED FOR R1 TO R3 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R NO REPRESENTATION FOR REVISION PETITIONER TODAY ALSO. R.C.R IS DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 28.7.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.531 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the legal heirs of the original landlord is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing the Rent Control Petition for eviction completely. The original landlord sought to evict the tenant on the grounds of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) and the ground of subletting under Section 11(4)(i). The tenant contested the Rent Control Petition raising several R. C. R. No.531 of 2005 -2- contentions. The Rent Control Court after enquiry came to the conclusion that the landlord was unsuccessful in establishing the existence of any of the eviction grounds invoked. Accordingly, the RCP was dismissed. The Appellate Authority made a re-appraisal of the evidence and would concur with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority accordingly dismissed the appeal. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and Sri.Mathew John (K), the learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed very strenuous and persuasive arguments before us on the basis of the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. He submitted that the findings entered by the R. C. R. No.531 of 2005 -3- statutory authorities in the context of all the three grounds are contrary to the evidence actually on record. According to him, the judgment of the Appellate Authority suffers from illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. Sri.Philip T. Varghese, the learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions of Sri.Mathew John. He reminded us of the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20 and submitted that there is no warrant at all for invocation of the above jurisdiction. 2. Having anxiously considered the rival submissions and having gone through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we are of the view that R. C. R. No.531 of 2005 -4- the findings entered by the statutory authorities are based on evidence and there is no warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. As regards the ground of arrears of rent, we notice that before the Appellate Authority, the landlord conceded that eviction order under Section 11(2) (b) need not be passed. We do not find any warrant at all for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision necessarily has to fail. 3. But we notice another aspect of the matter. The building is situated on the central junction of Karukachal town. The building has an extent of 200 sq. ft. The contract rent presently being paid by the respondents is Rs.900/-. We are convinced that the same is far below the rent the building may fetch if the same is let out today. We R. C. R. No.531 of 2005 -5- feel that subject to right of either party to move the Rent Control Court for fixation of fair rent, rent payable by the respondents should be enhanced at Rs.1,500/-. The same is re-fixed accordingly but with effect from 01/11/10. It is open to either party to move the Rent Control Court for fixation of fair rent under Section 5. We also record the submission of Sri.Mathew John that after the appeal was disposed of by the Appellate Authority, the tenant has not paid any rent. 4. The result of the above discussion is; The RCR is dismissed. Rent payable by the respondent is with effect from 01/11/10 at Rs.1,500/- per mensem. We make it clear that it is open to either party to apply for fixation of fair R. C. R. No.531 of 2005 -6- rent under Section 5. We make it further clear that it is open to the landlord to file fresh Rent Control Petition on all available grounds including the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2) (b). PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-