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 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 RCRev..No. 30 of 2010(E) ----------------------- RCA.125/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PARAVUR RCP.118/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT -------------------- T.BENDICT ROZARIO @ BENNY, S/O. LATEB.T.ROZARIO, PUTHENKOTTA HOUSE, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017. BY ADV. MR. E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. LILLY SUBRAMONIAN, LILLY BHAVAN, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017, (DECEASED). 2. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.LATE LILLY SUBRAMONIAN, CHOICE PARK, L.F.C.ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017. 3. INDU JAYARAJ, W/O. LATE JAYARAJ, CHOICE PARK, L.F.C.ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017. 4. ATHIRA JAYARAJ, D/O. LATE JAYARAJ, CHOICE PARK, L.F.C.ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017. 5. REMYA JAYARAJ, D/O. LATE JAYARAJ, CHOICE PARK, L.F.C.ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017. ADV. MR. K.R.VINOD FOR R1 TO R5 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 43 OF 2010 AND RCR NO. 44 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ R.C. Revn. Nos.30, 43 and 44 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 O R D E R ------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. Tenants are in revision. Eviction was ordered against them by the Rent Control Court. Rent Control Appellate Authority under the impugned common judgment confirmed the order of eviction passed against them by the Rent Control Court notwithstanding the demise of the landlady and the dependent family members during the pendency of the proceedings accepting the affidavit which was filed before the Appellate Authority after the final hearing of the appeals were over. Our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners to a very recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Seshambal v. Chelur Corporation (2010 (1) KLT 834 SC). It is argued by the learned counsel that the need which was projected in the Rent Control Petition has become completely eclipsed. It was alternatively argued that serious prejudice has been occasioned to the revision petitioners on account of the learned Appellate Authority acting upon an affidavit which RCR.30,43&44/2010 2 was filed after the final hearing of the appeals was over. The submission is that the revision petitioners did not get any opportunity to meet the affidavit, i.e. to contend whether the present respondents, who are the legal heirs of the deceased landlady as well as the dependents of the landlady for whom the eviction was sought for are in bonafide need of the premises. It was submitted that the respondents have stepped into the shoes of the original landlady and therefore the first proviso to Section 11(3) will operate with full force against them. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court be relied on and the RCRs be allowed and order of eviction be vacated. Alternatively they submitted that this court may at least pass an order of remand of the Rent Control Petition to the Rent Control Court so that the said court can permit further evidence and pass revised judgment taking into account all relevant inputs. 2. Even though the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners were stiffly resisted by Sri. P.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the respondents, we feel having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Seshambal's case and various other judgments of the Supreme Court and this court pertaining to the relevancy of subsequent events under Rent Control proceedings, that Rent Control Court RCR.30,43&44/2010 3 should have another look at the matter. At the same time we notice that the buildings in question are situated on the Kaloor- Kadavanthra road which of late has become one of the important thoroughfares in the city. We are told that the buildings are situated close to Kaloor junction itself. We feel that the monthly rent which is being paid by the revision petitioners is ridiculously low when compared to the rent prevailing in the locality at present for similar buildings. Hence we are inclined to refix the rents tentatively as we remit the RCPs back to Rent Control Court. Accordingly all these revision petitions are disposed of in the following terms: Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court are set aside. RCP.Nos.116/2005, 117/2005 and 118/2005 are remanded to the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. That court is directed to take a fresh decision in the RCPs. That court will permit both sides to raise additional pleadings in the RCPs. Once pleadings are raised the court will permit both sides to adduce evidence and will pass revised orders in the RCPs. But we notice that the finding that the tenants are not entitled to protection to second proviso to Section 11(3) has been concurrently confirmed by the authorities on the basis of legal evidence that came on record. Since we do not find any infirmity with that finding the above RCR.30,43&44/2010 4 finding is confirmed. The finding on the question whether need projected is bonafide and whether petitioner is entitled to protection to first proviso to Section 11(3) applies, will be reconsidered. The rent payable by the revision petitioners in R.C.Revn.No.30/2010 will stand tentatively refixed at Rs.3,000/- per mensum prospectively with effect from 1.4.2010. Similarly the rent payable by the revision petitioners in R.C.Revn.No.44/2010 will stand tentatively refixed with effect from 1.4.2010 at Rs.2,500/- per mensum and the rent payable by the revision petitioners in R.C.Revn.No.43/2010 will stand similarly refixed with effect from 1.4.2010 at Rs.1,500/- per mensum. We make it clear that the above refixation is only tentative and will be subject to regular fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court upon motion by either of the parties if they want to. Parties will enter appearance before the Rent Control Court on 9.4.2010. The court will make every endeavour to ensure that revised orders are passed in the RCPs at least by 31.8.2010. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb