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 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 328 of 2011 --------------------------- RCA.62/2009 of I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.53/2002 of III ADDL.M.C. EKM (RENT CONTROL) ORDER IN I.A.8496/07 IN RCP.53/02 DATED 03/10/09 OF III ADDL.M.C. EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------- SHAJI SEBASTIAN, S/O.DEVASSIA, AGED 45 YEARS, UNITED ELECTRONIKS, BUILDING NO.XIX/29, MANAPPAT CENTRE, HMT KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ SRI.C.S.ULLAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- ANITHA AMEER, W/O.AMEER AHMAED, MANAPPAT HOUSE, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR.N.K.MOHAMMED, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.N.K.KUNJUMOIDEEN, KALOOR.-682023. ADV. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN FOR R1 SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO.329 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. Nos.328 & 329 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in RCR 328/2011 filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order in I.A.8496/07 in RCP.53/02 under which the learned Rent Control Court dismissed the petition under Section 11(2)(c) for vacating the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court under 11(2)(b). Under challenge in RCR.329/11 filed by the very same tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order in I.A.8585/07 in RCP.53/02 under which the learned Rent Control Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for enlargement of time in the matter of making deposits under Section 11(2)(c). Various grounds are raised in both these revisions challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority. R. C. R. Nos.328 & 329 of 2011 -2- 2. Sri.M.A.Firoz, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed submissions before us based on all those grounds. Sri.Firoz submitted that the total amount which the petitioner was liable to deposit towards arrears of rent demanded through the statutory notice inclusive of interest was only ` 1,05,500/-. This amount was to have been deposited on 15/09/07. This amount stands deposited admittedly on 11/10/07. The cogent reasons had been stated for enlargement of time and the statutory authorities were not justified in dismissing the application under Section 11 (2)(c) and the application for enlargement of time. 3. Smt.Sanjitha, the learned counsel for the respondent per contra submitted that there is no warrant for interference within the well delineated contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20. The judgment of the Appellate Authority is not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as contemplated by Section 20. She submitted that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter in the matter of R. C. R. Nos.328 & 329 of 2011 -3- paying rent. The rent which fell due in respect of the building subsequent to the passage of the eviction order by the Rent Control Court has not been discharged. According to her, as on today exclusive of statutory interest and after giving credit for all payments made during the pendency of the proceedings a sum of ` 6,72,398/- will be due towards rent for the building. She submitted that even if this Court is inclined to show indulgence towards the petitioner, the same shall be on proper conditions including the condition that the above sum of ` 6,72,398/- together with interest at the statutory rate and cost of the proceedings should be ordered to be paid immediately. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions addressed at the Bar. We notice some merit in the submission of Smt.Sanjeetha that the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts do not suffer from illegalities, irregularities and improprieties as envisaged by R. C. R. Nos.328 & 329 of 2011 -4- section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. Nevertheless we are inclined to show indulgence towards the petitioner tenant. After all eviction order which was passed by the Rent Control Court was one on the ground under Section 11(2)(b) only. It is well known that such eviction orders are provisional orders always liable to be got vacated by making requisite deposits within the time fixed by the court. In the instant case, if the petitioner had deposited a sum of ` 1,05,500/- on or before 15/09/07 the eviction order would have stood vacated. The difficulty arose only because of the delay in making deposits. 5. We are however not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner without imposing stringent conditions. We are convinced on the submissions addressed at the Bar that as on today inclusive of the rent for the month of September, 2011 the amount due from the revision petitioner to the respondent towards the rent which fell due in respect of the period subsequent to the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) is more than ` 5 lakhs. We therefore, are R. C. R. Nos.328 & 329 of 2011 -5- inclined to grant relief only on conditions that the petitioner pays to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today the above sum of ` 5 lakhs towards the rent in arrears in respect of the building. If payment is made within 6 weeks as ordered above and receipt is produced before the Rent Control Court, the Rent Control Court shall re-consider I.A.8496/07 as though the same is filed on time and pass favourable orders on the same. If payment of ` 5 lakhs ordered as above is not made within 6 weeks from today, the judgments which are impugned in these revisions will stand confirmed. We make it clear that even if this order of ours becomes operative on account of the petitioner making payment of ` 5 lakhs. It will be open to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings against the respondent for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent if the respondent believes that rent is still in arrears from the petitioner. As we are told that delivery stands posted to 04/10/11, there will be a direction to the execution court to adjourn the delivery R. C. R. Nos.328 & 329 of 2011 -6- already ordered to 15/11/11. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-