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 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 RCRev..No. 83 of 2010() ----------------------- RCA.3/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM RCP.14/2009 of PRL.M.C., KOLLAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ RAJASEKHARAN, S/O.DR.K.N.BALAKRISHNA KURUP, AGED 55 YEARS, SYAM NIVAS, HOUSE NO.1638, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. R.SATISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- SASEENDRAN PILLAI @ SASIDHARAN PILLAI, THANKAMBHAVAN, PULLICHIRA POST, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AMBIKA, -DO-. ADVS. MS. T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) FOR R1 MS. K.G. BINDU THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RCR.83/2010 ORDER ON I.A. 669 OF 2010 IN RCR.83 OF 2010 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 7.4.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.83 of 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 O R D E R --------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing RCA.No:3/2010 filed by the revision petitioner. Annexure-A6 is the copy of the memorandum of appeal in RCA.3/2010. A reading of Annexure-A6 will show that the order of eviction which was impugned in Annexure-A6 was the summary order of eviction dt.6.11.2009 passed against the revision petitioner under Section 12(3). In fact the above summary order was passed by the Rent Control Court after dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner seeking enlargement of time to make payment in response to an earlier order under Section 12(1) passed by the Rent Control Court. A reading of the appellate judgment dt.30.1.2010 will show that the Appellate Authority was concerned with correctness of the order of Rent Control Court dismissing the time extension application. We are sure RCR.83/2010 2 that the Appellate Authority is not to blame for that. Before the Appellate Authority, arguments were addressed on behalf of the appellants regarding the correctness of the order dismissing the application for enlargement of time. But as already indicated by us the appeal was directed against the summary order of eviction. In this revision we will examine legal correctness of the summary order of eviction. The summary order of eviction was preceded by an order under Section 12(1) passed by the Rent Control Court initially on 5.10.2009. But after having passed that order the Rent Control Court posted the case to 8.12.2009 just granting 3 days' time to the tenant for depositing arrears of rent. Revision petitioner/tenant sought a review of that order alerting the Rent Control Court regarding statutory requirement of granting a minimum period of four weeks for deposit of arrears. Review was allowed and the court granted time till 6.11.2009 to the revision petitioner for complying with the direction to pay the admitted arrears of rent. On 6.11.2009 the revision petitioner filed an application for enlargement of time as I.A.No.5713/2009. RCR.83/2010 3 What the learned Rent Control Court did was to dismiss the I.A straight away and to pass summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) simultaneously. 2. According to us, the mandatory requirement that the tenant should be given an opportunity to show cause against the summary order of eviction which is proposed to be passed against him has not been complied with by the learned Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court could have adjourned the case by two or three days during which period the tenant/revision petitioner could have shown cause against the order of eviction. Thus we notice procedural infirmity regarding the course of action adopted by the Rent Control Court. To that extent it has to be found that the order of Rent Control Court which is virtually confirmed by the judgment of the Appellate Authority is vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and improprieties as envisaged by Section 20 of the Act 2 of 1965. 3. At the same time we are not inclined to set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and judgment of the Appellate Authority without imposing conditions. This is RCR.83/2010 4 because we are sure that the revision petitioner has been callously negligent in the matter of pursuing his defence and in complying with his statutory duty of paying admitted rent in arrears and also the rent that fell due subsequently on time. Going by the lease deed relied on by the landlord the rent is Rs.3000/-. Even though the contention is seen raised by the tenant that the contract rent is Rs.2,500/- only, prima facie it appears to us that the contention is not a bonafide one. Therefore we propose to impose a condition that the petitioner should pay the entire arrears of rent as alleged by the landlord due till date less any amount paid to the landlord already immediately. We notice from Annexure-A13 that a sum of Rs.85,000/- is paid. Since the proceedings are under Section 12 the revision petitioner need not pay interest. After deducting that amount as per the calculation of the landlord a sum of Rs.23,000/- will be due towards arrears of rent alone. The revision petitioner has to pay that amount and also cost for his negligence. 4. The result of the above discussions is as follows: The impugned summary order of eviction passed by the Rent RCR.83/2010 5 Control Court and judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the same will stand set aside on the following conditions. i. The revision petitioner pays a sum of Rs.23,000/- by cash either directly to the respondent or through the respondent's counsel in this court on or before 9.4.2010. ii. The revision petitioner will also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent as cost either directly or through the respondent's Advocate in this court within the same time limit. iii. Apart from the above two payments the revision petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee also within the same time limit. The receipts against payment of all the three amounts will be produced before the Rent Control Court. The above judgment setting aside the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority will become operative only when the Rent Control Court notices payments on time. Once the RCR.83/2010 6 judgment becomes operative, the learned Rent Control Court will include the Rent Control Petition in the earliest available special list and try the case on a day-today basis and dispose of the same early and at any rate within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb