IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 RCRev..No. 72 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.101/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR RCP.110/1999 of I ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------- ROSA, W/O RAPPAI, THATTIL HOUSE, KODANNUR DESOM, KODANNUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O POULOSE, ARIMBUR ADAMBUKULAM VEETTIL, AMMADOM DESOM, PARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. JOSE,AGED 54 YEARS, S/O KOCHAPPU @ OUSEPH, ARIMBUR KODAKKADAN VEETIL, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.735/2008 IN R.C.R.No.72/2008 DISMISSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 04/08/2008. \\TRUE COPY// P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R.C.R.No.72 of 2008-C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 ORDER ORDER RAMAN, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner who is faced with an order of eviction passed under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent. Earlier, the Rent Control Court ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.5,070/- as arrears, before 20/07/2002. That order became final but amounts were not deposited as directed till 05/12/2002. Show cause notice was therefore issued requiring the tenant to explain why an order under Section 12(3) of the Act should not be passed. The tenant did not show any cause nor did he pay any admitted arrears of rent. In the circumstances, the landlord invoked Section 12(3) of the Act and sought for an order of eviction. After hearing both sides, the Rent Control Court passed an order by which the tenant was ordered to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted building for non-compliance of its earlier order. This was challenged by the tenant in R.C.A.No.101/2004. The appellate court R.C.R.NO.72/2008-C -:2:- also, after considering the matter, confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court. Hence, this revision. 2. We have heard both sides. Admittedly, an order was passed by the Rent Control Court directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent of an amount of Rs.5,070/-. It is also not disputed that the said amount was not deposited as directed. Even though a show cause notice was issued requiring the tenant to explain why an order under Section 12(3) of the Act should not be passed, the tenant did not show any cause nor did he pay any admitted arrears of rent. In such circumstances, Section 12(3) of the Act is automatically attracted. Hence, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Rent Control Court. Revision fails and it is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms