IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 105 of 2009() ------------------------ REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------- P.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARA IYER, MANAGING PARTNER, TELECOM SYSTEMS, T.C.28/1786, THAKARAPARAMBIL, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- R.M.RAJENDRAN, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY REDDIAR, ANANDA BHAVAN, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.105 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act 2 of 1965 is a summary order of eviction passed by the rent control appellate authority under sub section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. The appellate authority in June 2007 directed the tenant revision petitioner to pay the entire arrears of rent admitted by him. The stand taken by the revision petitioner was that he has discharged the entire arrears of rent admitted by him and that he seriously disputed his liability to pay the rent allegedly payable for a period of 39 months commencing from February 1997. The appellate authority, however, has passed the impugned order on the reason that the admitted arrears of rent is not paid and that no cause is shown against the passage of summary order of eviction. 2. Having heard the submissions of Sri.D.Kishore, learned RCR.No.105/2009 2 counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Sri.J.S.Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the respondent landlord, we are convinced that as on the date the impugned summary order of eviction was passed by the appellate authority, the revision petitioner tenant had discharged the arrears of rent admitted by him. That being the position, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the appellate authority is vitiated by legal and factual illegality and the same is liable to be vacated invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act. 3. Sri.J.S.Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the subject building is under acquisition proceedings for the purpose of road widening and an award has been passed. According to him, the land acquisition authority is unable to take over possession, on account of the resistance by the revision petitioner tenant, who is not an interested party in the land acquisition proceedings, though the landlord is willing to surrender the acquired property on receiving compensation from the Government. The submission of Sri.Ajithkumar appears to be correct. But, in this proceedings we are concerned RCR.No.105/2009 3 only with the legal correctness of the impugned judgment of the rent control appellate authority. Hence, allowing the revision, we set aside the judgment of the rent control appellate authority and direct the appellate authority to dispose of the RCA in accordance with law, at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. 4. As for the complaint of Sri.Ajithkumar that the land acquisition authority is unable to take possession due to resistance of the revision petitioner, we will observe that this judgment will not stand in the way of the land acquisition authority enforcing recovery of possession by having recourse to proceedings under Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. It is noticed by us that as on the end of May 2009, rent is admittedly in arrears to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, it is directed that the present order setting aside the impugned judgment will become operative only if the revision petitioner pays to the respondent either directly or through his counsel in this court the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) within three weeks from today. If payment as directed RCR.No.105/2009 4 above is not made, this revision petition will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk