IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 RCRev..No. 176 of 2005() ---------------------------------- RCA.227/1997, 228/97 & 7/98 of THE RENTD CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ( PRL.DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY). I.A. 2343/96 IN RCP. 13/82, IA. 4186/97 IN RCP 19/82, IA.1437/97 IN RCP 17/82 OF THE RENT CONTROLLER ( PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR) . .............. REVISION PETITIONER (S)/ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- 1. MANILAL JAMNADAS (DIED). 2. KANTHA BAI, W/O.MANILAL JAMNADAS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.CW 30/2655, 32 ROOMS LANE, ONDEN ROAD, NEAR ST.MICHLES SCHOOL, KANNUR-1. 3. MADHU BALA, D/O.MANILAL JAMNADAS, RESIDING DO. DO. 4. DEEPAK MANILAL, S/O.MANAILAL JAMNADAS, RESIDING DO.DO. BY ADV. MR.T.A.RAMADASAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. A.ALEXANDER, S/O.AROGYA SWAMY, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.170-C, BAITAL SALAM BUILDING, BURNASSERY, KANNUR-13. 2. V.VIJAYAN, S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT KANNUR-I, AMSOM DESOM. 3. GRACY KALLAN, D/O.VINCENT, RESIDING AT BOAT JETTY, WEST P.O., WEST, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 177 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.2142/2005 IN RCR NO.176/2005 DISMISSED 22/12/2009 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- RCR Nos.176 and 177 of 2005 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Under challenge in these revisions filed by the landlords are the judgments of the Rent Control Appellate Authority directing re-induction of the tenants who were evicted on the ground of re- construction under Section 11(4)(iv) into the newly constructed buildings. One of the grounds seriously raised by the landlords is that the respondents/ tenants are not entitled to be re-inducted into the re- constructed building because they were not evicted on the basis of an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iv); instead the actual eviction was made on the basis of an agreement between the parties. Another ground which is raised is that the Rent Control Appellate Authority fixed fair rent payable by the RCR Nos.176 & 177 of 2005 2 respondents/tenants at Rs.300/- per mensum only. This amount is very low. It is argued on the basis of the various documents placed by the landlords in evidence that on a modest estimate, the buildings will fetch monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr.Ciby Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioners/ landlords and those of Mr.C.P.Peethambharan, the learned counsel for the respondents. We have carefully gone through the judgments of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the orders which were impugned in the Appellate Authority. The right of a tenant, who is evicted on the basis of an order of eviction passed under Section 11(4)(iv) [the ground of re-construction] to be re-inducted into the building after re-construction is statutory. In the instant case, we find that the authorities under the Act, viz. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority which passed the order of eviction had RCR Nos.176 & 177 of 2005 3 specifically directed the landlord to carry out the re- construction and to re-induct into the re-constructed building subject to their liability to pay fair rent. We are not impressed by the submission of Mr.Ciby Thomas that actual eviction of the respondents was not on the strength of the eviction order passed by the authorities under the Rent Control Court but was on the basis of an agreement. It is true that there was a subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the time to surrender and also the period in which the re-construction should be made. But the above agreement has been executed on the basis of the eviction order. Apart from the eviction order actually passed by the authorities under the statute under Section 11(4)(iv), the agreement relied on by the landlords have no legs to stand. We find that the Appellate Authority has appraised the evidence correctly and has analysed the law and applied it correctly. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or RCR Nos.176 & 177 of 2005 4 impropriety about the decision of the Appellate Authority that the respondents are entitled to be re- inducted into the re-constructed building. 3. The materials available before us show that the respondents are to be re-inducted into the residential apartments having approximate carpet area of 400 sq.ft. with a sit out, a bed room, a kitchen and bath room. We also notice that a licence agreement has been produced by the landlord to show that one of the apartments in the newly re- constructed building has been let out to a new tenant on a monthly licence fee of Rs.2,000/- per mensum. We find force in the submission of Mr.Ciby Thomas that the rate of Rs.300/- per mensum is too low. We are of the view that the Appellate Authority should be directed to take a fresh decision on the fair rent of the buildings into which the respondents are to be re- inducted, keeping in mind the principles laid down by this Court in Edger Ferus v Abraham Ittycheria RCR Nos.176 & 177 of 2005 5 (2004(1) KLT 767) which has approved by the Supreme Court in Edger Ferus v Abraham Ittycheria (2009(4) KLT 673). At the same time in view of our finding that the rate presently fixed at Rs.300/- per mensum is too low. Even as we are relegating the issue back to the appellate authority, we direct the respondents to pay rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per mensum till fair rent is fixed by the appellate authority pursuant to this judgment. The result of the above discussion is as follows: i) The judgment of the appellate authority to the extent it fixes the fair rent payable by the respondents at Rs.300/- per mensum is set aside. The matter is relegated to the appellate authority for deciding the fair rent payable by the respondents. The appellate authority will decide the fair rent payable by the respondents for the apartments into which they are to be re-inducted on the basis of any evidence which may be produced by either of the parties before that RCR Nos.176 & 177 of 2005 6 court. The appellate authority is given four months time after receiving copy of this judgment for fixing the fair rent pursuant to this judgment. Considering the request of the learned counsel for the landlord that time be given for re-induction, we direct that the judgment of the appellate authority directing re- induction of the respondents into the re-constructed building will be implemented only after a period of three months from today. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/