IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 RCRev..No. 188 of 2009() ------------------------ REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------- P. REMANI AMMA, LEKSHMI NIVAS, HOUSE NO,3, KAIRALI NAGAR, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O., KOLLAM EST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.VIMALAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. A.SIVAKUMAR, S/O. R. AYYAPPAN, NAMBHAZHATHU VEEDU, HOUSE NO.16, DEVI NAGAR, KAIKULANGARA NORTH WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 2. DEEPA, W/O. SIVAKUMAR, NAMBHAZHATHU VEEDU, HOUSE NO. 16, DEVI NAGAR, KAIKULANGARA NORTH WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR K.P.SUJESH KUMAR, K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 188 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of the Act 2 of 1965. 2. Sri.N.Vimalan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant addressed us extensively on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. The learned counsel would cite the Bench decisions of this court in Pochappan Narayanan v. Gopalan (1990(2) KLT1) and Xavier v. Leonard Pappali ( 1975 KLT 542) in support of the arguments addressed by him. The learned counsel also referred to the judgment of this court in Pathumma Beevi. v. Lonappan (1985 KLT 705). The learned counsel argued that the statutory obligation of the tenant is only to pay the arrears of rent admitted by him. Such arrears, though belatedly, has now been discharged. The learned counsel further submitted that it was RCR.No.188/2009 2 obligatory on the part of the Rent Control Court to have issued a show cause notice to the revision petitioner directing the revision petitioner to show cause why the summary order of eviction should not be passed. Such a show cause notice has not been issued in this case. This vitiated the order of the Rent Control Court though confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 3. Resisting the submissions of Sri.Vimalan, it was submitted by Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords that the legal position is now trite that it is not necessary that show cause notice as such should be issued to the petitioner. What is necessary is that the court should have given reasonable time so as to enable the tenant to show cause against the proposed summary order of eviction under Section 12(3). 4. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions. We have scanned the proceedings papers maintained by the Rent Control Court. We have also gone through the ratio of the decisions cited at the Bar. As submitted by Sri.Suresh Kumar, there is no statutory obligation on the part of the Rent Control Court to issue show cause notice after the initial order under RCR.No.188/2009 3 Section 12(1) is passed directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent admitted and the rent which has fallen due subsequently. We notice that after passing the initial order under Section 12 (1), the revision petitioner has got atleast 22 days time. During that time, the revision petitioner could have shown cause against the proposed order of eviction and avoided the summary order of eviction under Section 12 (3) which was passed against her. We do not find any infirmity, illegality or irregularity warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 on the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. We are, therefore, obliged to confirm the judgment of the Appellate Authority. 5. We may point out now that we have taken up this revision for final disposal only after unsuccessfully exploring the possibility of settlement between the parties. 5. Result is that the RCR is dismissed. However, considering the last plea of Sri.Vimalan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, we are inclined to grant time till 30/4/2010 to the revision petitioner for surrendering the premises subject to the following conditions; RCR.No.188/2009 4 The Revision Petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondents on or before 30/4/2010. The revision petitioner shall also be undertake through the same affidavit that the rent for four months which fell due subsequent to the institution of the RCP and admittedly kept in arrears will be discharged i.e. will be paid to the respondents/landlords within two months and the rent which falls due thereafter will also be paid promptly as and when the same falls due. 7. Once the Execution Court notices the affidavit, the Execution Petition will be adjourned to the day the court reopens after mid summer holidays. There is some controversy between the parties as to whether the petitioner had deposited sum of Rs.20,000/- with RCR.No.188/2009 5 the respondents/landlords through the mother-in-law of the respondent/landlord as security. The Execution Court is directed to settle this controversy within six weeks from today. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk