IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 RCRev..No. 393 of 2011() ------------------------------------ R.C.A.75/2010 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR R.C.P.15/2004 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KODUNGALLUR. ................. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ RAJESH, S/O.VALLOMPARAMBATH, PANIKKASSERY HARIDAS, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SMT.M.M. DEEPA, SRI.JOHNSON VARIKKAPPALLI, SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------- AMMINI, W/O.KALATHIKATT, PULICKAL PURUSHOTHAMAN, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, 680 664. ADV. SRI.S.RUSSEL FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs PIUS C KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ --------------------------------- R.C.R. NO. 393 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011. ORDER C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. This Revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is filed by the tenant who had suffered a summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12 (3) of the Act, which was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate authority. By the impugned order of Rent Control Court, the petitioner was directed to put the respondent in possession of the petition scheduled building within three months. 2. It is noticed that, when the show cause notice as contemplated under Section 12 (2) was issued, instead of filing objections, the petitioner filed I.A. 1215/2010 seeking direction to adjust a sum of Rs.9 lakhs alleged to have been given as security, against the arrears of rent claimed. The said application was dismissed by the Rent Control Court as per order dated 11.08.2010. Since no other objection was raised, the Rent Control Court confirmed the order under 2 RCR No. 393/2011 Section 12 (3). The Appellate Authority after considering the matter elaborately, found that the revision petitioner had no case even in the objections filed in the Rent Control petition with respect to payment of Rs.9 lakhs as security. It was further noticed by the Appellate Authority that if the case of the Revision petitioner would have been true, he would not have paid a sum of Rs.73,500/- towards arrears of rent on earlier occasions. The Appellate Authority found that the filing of application, I.A. No. 1215/2010, was only with an intention to protract the matter. 3. Smt. M.M. Deepa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised contention to the effect that the courts below ought to have accepted the application seeking adjustment of the security deposit. The contention was stiffly opposed by Sri. R. Russel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. Considering the issue, we notice the settled legal position that the tenant is not entitled to seek adjustment of security deposit in a petition filed for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, nor in a petition filed under Section 12 of the Act. Hence we do not find any merit in the contentions of the Revision Petitioner. In the jurisdiction vested upon this Court 3 RCR No. 393/2011 which is revisional in nature, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or improbability with respect to the impugned judgment warranting interference. Accordingly the Revision Petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Knowing about the decision of this Court as stated above, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner made an appeal to allow time of one year for surrendering vacant possession of the building. She also pleaded for direction from this Court for return/adjustment of the admitted amount of security deposit, to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had conceded that an amount of Rs.4 lakhs is lying in deposit with the land lord and that he is willing to return the amount after adjustment of the arrears of rent if any due, on the tenant vacating the building. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, while dismissing the Revision Petition, we grant time till 30th June, 2012 for the tenant to vacate the scheduled building, subject to the following conditions. 1. The revision petitioner/tenant will file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, undertaking to 4 RCR No. 393/2011 surrender vacant possession of the scheduled building on or before the 30th June, 2012. The affidavit as directed above shall be filed within a period of three weeks from today. 2. The respondent is directed to effect refund of the admitted amount of security deposit of Rs.4 lakhs, after adjusting arrears of rent due till the date of surrender of vacant possession, at the time of vacating the scheduled building. The Execution court will ensure that no delivery is ordered and effected till 30.06.2012, if the petitioner files the affidavit as directed above and comply with other conditions stipulated. It should be ensured that delivery is ordered and effected only after ensuring refund/adjustment of the security deposit, as directed above. It is open to the petitioner to approach the Civil court for recovery of further amounts if any due from the respondent. PIUS C KURIAKOSE JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc