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 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 173 of 2010 --------------------------- RCA.9/2010 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM IA 7277 /2009 IN RCP.62/2009 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.GLOBAL EDUCATIONAL NET, UEG HOUSE, N.H.47, PADIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM 682 024, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY SRI.T.K.HARIKUMAR, UEG HOUSE, N.H.47, PADIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI.T.K.HARIKUMAR, SECRETARY, M/S.GLOBAL EDUCATIONAL NET, UEG HOUSE, THAMATH HOUSE, PURAKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. REGIONAL MANAGER, M/S.GLOBAL EDUCATIONAL NET, UEG HOUSE, N.H.47, PADIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM-682024. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. MRS.THANKAMMA MATHEW, W/O.KORAH MATHEW, MANNIL, 4-B, HARBOUR CREST, KURISHUPALLY ROAD, KOCHI-682015. 2. MR.SHAMMY MATHEW, S/O.KORAH MATHEW, MANNIL, 4-B, HARBOUR CREST, KURISHUPALLY ROAD, KOCHI-682015. RCR.173/10 -2- 3. MRS.ASHA MATHEW, W/O.SHAMMY MATHEW, 4-B, HARBOUR CREST, KURISHUPALLY ROAD,KOCHI-682015 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.KORAH MATHEW, S/O.C.M.KORAH, MANNIL, 4-B, HARBOUR CREST, KURISHUPALLY ROAD, KOCHI-682015. SRI.C.T.JOSEPH FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.173 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing RCA.9/10 with costs observing that despite consecutive directions (regarding the payment of arrears) there has been no compliance by the appellant/tenant. Under the impugned judgment the learned Appellate Authority has also made an observation that a sum of Rs.58 lakhs is due by way of arrears of rent. Sri.P.Viswanathan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner R. C. R. No.173 of 2010 -2- addressed us in detail. We have also heard the submissions of Sri.Roshin Ipe Joseph, the learned counsel for the respondent who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of the revision. We notice that the order of the Rent Control Court which was impugned by the revision petitioner before the Appellate Authority by RCA.9/10 was not a final order of eviction under Sub Section 3 of Section 12. On the contrary it was only an order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(1) and (2) directing the revision petitioners/tenants to pay admitted arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.3,70,000/- per mensem after effecting statutory and agreed deductions from February, 2009. According to us, the Rent Control Appeal should not have been entertained by the learned R. C. R. No.173 of 2010 -3- Appellate Authority. The appeal should have been rejected as a premature one as the Rent Control Court was yet to pass a summary order of eviction under Section 12(3). We are sure that before any such summary order under Section 12(3) is passed by the Rent Control Court, opportunity will be given by that court to show cause against passage of such summary order and thereafter only such order will be passed. It was unnecessary for the learned Appellate Authority to have gone into the merits of the matter as the RCA could have been held to be not maintainable. We hold that the RCA insofar as it was directed against an order passed under Section 12(1) and (2), is not maintainable. Modifying the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority, we dismiss the RCA in R. C. R. No.173 of 2010 -4- limine. We direct the learned Rent Control Court to finalise the proceedings under Section 12 in accordance with the procedure envisaged by Section 12 as explained by binding judicial precedents. The RCR is disposed of accordingly. We are sure that the Rent Control Court will expedite matters and hence, we do not set any time frame for that court for compliance of the above directions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-