IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 252 of 2010(F) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.6800/09 IN RCA.48/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.23/2008 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER(S):/PETITIONER/ APPELLANT ------------------------ K.K.SAIFI, S/O. KOCHU MOHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS, 43/54A, KARTHANTE PARAMBIL, THRIKANARVATTOM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------- K.A.JULIET, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. T.P.GEACHAN, THERUVIPARAMBIL, LILLY BHVAN, PARAVOOR THALUK, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM LAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 252 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 7 th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 227. He challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority vacating the conditional stay which had been granted in respect of execution proceedings. He also challenges Ext.P5 order issued by the Execution Court directing delivery on the reason that the Appellate Authority has vacated the stay. 2. The Rent Control Court passed order of eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the Rent Control Appellate Authority and sought for stay of execution. The Appellate Authority granted stay subject to the condition that the entire arrears of rent admitted shall be deposited within one month of 13/11/2009. The petitioner became liable on the terms of that order to pay or deposit a sum of Rs.51,000/- being WPC.No.252/2010 2 admitted arrears. But he did not make deposit or payment. Instead, he filed Ext.P3 application seeking enlargement of time for making deposit by four weeks. The learned Appellate Authority did not pass any order on Ext.P3. But, noticing that the condition imposed on the stay petition had not been complied with, what the Appellate Authority did was to pass Ext.P4 order vacating the stay. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri. S.P.Chaly, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri. Abraham Lal, learned counsel for the respondent. We notice that against Ext.P5 order passed by the Executing Court, the petitioner has statutory remedy by way of revision under Section 14 of the Act to the District Court. However, since the writ petition challenges Ext.P4 also, we are inclined to entertain the same. The appeal, which the writ petitioner has filed against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, is a statutory appeal under Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965. We notice that eviction order has been passed also on the substantial ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. The averments in the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of Ext.P3 application has some appeal to us. We feel WPC.No.252/2010 3 that having filed statutory appeal against Ext.P1 order of eviction, the petitioner should be allowed to have the appeal decided on merits by the Appellate Authority. At the same time, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner unless it be on stringent conditions. 4. The result of the above discussions is that the writ petition will stand disposed of issuing the following directions. i). Ext.P4 order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Vth Additional District Court,Ernakulam) and Ext.P5 of the Munsiff's Court will stand set aside on condition that the writ petitioner pays a sum of Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to the respondent towards the arrears of rent claimed against him without prejudice to his contention in the RCA. on or before 1/2/2010. ii). There will be a further condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as costs to the respondent through his counsel in this court WPC.No.252/2010 4 within the same time limit. Iii). If the two amounts mentioned above are not paid, Exts.P4 and Ext.P5 will stand confirmed and the Execution Court will be bound to effect delivery immediately. iv). Considering the above directions, we direct the Execution Court to adjourn the delivery ordered under Ext.P5 to 2/2/2010. Once the Appellate Authority notices that the petitioner has complied with the above directions on time, that authority will ensure that the RCA itself is disposed of early and at any rate within six weeks from 2/2/2010. It is needless to mention that under such a contingency, the Execution proceedings will stand put off till the final disposal of the RCA. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk