IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 RCRev..No. 375 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.3/2004 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORIYT , PALAKKAD RCP.50/1994 of RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER(APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PARVATHIRANI, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN. 2. BHARATHAN, S/O.LTE RAGHAVAN. 3. SAVITHRI, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN. 4. SARASWATHI, W/O.JAYACHANDRAN. 5. SUNITHA, W/O.RAJESH. 6. PADMAVATHY, W/O.LATE RAGHAVAN. THE REVISION PETITIONERS ARE RESIDING AT PANICKER HOUSE, MARIYAMMAN KOVIL STREET, MELAMURI, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE SMT.O.K.SANTHA RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS 1,3 TO 11 AND 13 TO 22/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 TO 20) -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMU ALIAS RAMASWAMY PANICKER, S/O.VISWANATHA PANICKER. 2. SOMAN, S/O.RAMU ALIAS RAMASWAMY PANICKER 3. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMU ALIAS RAMASWAMY PANICKER. 4. SELVAN, S/O.RAMU ALIAS RAMASWAMY - PANICKER. 5. MANOHARAN, S/O.RAMU ALIAS RAMASWAMY PANICKER. 6. KUTTAN, S/O.MADHAVA PANICKER. 7. RAJENDRAN. 8. SIVAGIRI PANICKER, S/O.VISWANATHA PANICKER. 9. GANESH, S/O.SIVAGIRI PANICKER. 10. MURUKAN, S/O.VISWANATHA PANICKER. 11. PRABHAKARAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY PANICKER. 12. CHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY PANICKER. 13. JANAKI, D/O.KRISHNANKUTTY PANICKER. 14. PANCHALI, W/O.LATE MADHAVA PANICKER. 15. M.PANKAJAM, D/O.PANCHALI. 16. M.CHANDRIKA, D/O.PANCHALI. 17. PARVATHI, W/O.LATE NATARAJAN. 18. SUBHADRA, D/O.LTE NATARAJAN. 19. PRASAD, S/O.LATE NATARAJAN. 20. PRAKASH, S/O.LATE NATARAJAN. THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 12 AND 14 TO 20 ARE RESIDING AT MARIYAMMAN KOVIL STREET, MELMURI,KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD AND 13TH RESPONDENT IS RESIDING AT VENNAKKARA, PIRAYIRI AMSOM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 375 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the landladies(the legal heirs of the original landlord) is the judgment of the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court declining eviction on the grounds under Section 11 (3), 11(8) and 11 (4)(i) sought by the landlord. 2. The need projected in the rent control petition by the original landlord, one Mr.Raghavan, was that the petition schedule building is required for the occupation by PW2 his son. Raghavan died during the pendency of the proceedings and the Rent Control Court took the view that with the demise of Raghavan, the need had ceased to exist. The above view of the Rent Control Court cannot be said to be correct. But, we notice that PW2 in his oral evidence had stated that he does not intend RCR.No.375/2006 2 to shift his residence over to the petition schedule building. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any difficultly to sustain the negative order passed by the statutory authorities under Sub section (3) of Section 11. The same is the position regarding the eviction ground under Section 11 (4)(i) and 11 (8) of the Act. On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, we find that the findings entered by those authorities in the context of those grounds are findings entered on the basis of evidence which was available on record. We do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. 3. Sri.D.Krishna Prasad learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the subsequent event of Raghavan passing away and many other subsequent events which have taken place since the institution of the RCP in the year 1994, the landladies should be allowed to institute fresh proceedings invoking all the grounds which are presently available to them. We feel that the above request is reasonable. 4. We dismiss the revision petition leaving open the liberty of the petitioners/landladies to evict the tenants by RCR.No.375/2006 3 initiating fresh proceedings under Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965 invoking all the grounds which are presently available to them. If a fresh Rent control petition is instituted by the revision petitioners within two months from today, the Rent Control Court will try the same and take a decision on the merits of the eviction ground without being influenced by the negative findings entered in the judgment of the Appellate Authority which is impugned in this revision. We dismiss the revision petition in limine. 5. After we pronounced the above order, Mr.Krishna Prasad submitted that the monthly rent, which is payable by the respondents/tenants for the petition schedule building which is situated within the limits of Palakkad Municipal town, is a paltry sum of Rs.12/- per month. The learned counsel requested that we refix the rent at least tentatively. We are not inclined to accept the above request straight way. We permit the petitioners to move the Rent Control Court by filing separate petition under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent. We are sure that if any such petition is filed by the landladies/petitioners, the Rent Control Court will fix the fair rent keeping in mind the prevailing rent RCR.No.375/2006 4 rates in the locality and other relevant aspects indicated by this court in the decision in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1) KLT 767). PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk