IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 RCRev..No. 289 of 2010(B) ------------------------------- RCA.75/2005 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.62/2004 of MUNSIFF/RENT CONTROL COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------- K.A.ABDUL SALAM AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMU, KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.474,DIVISION 31,THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT /RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. DASAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KARIYATTIL VARGHESE, PO,.VALAPPAD, NATTIKA,AMSOM,ATTIKA, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680 567. 2. ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.THOPPIYIL KUNHI MUHAMMED,KATTOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM, PO,.KATTOOR , PIN 680 702. ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.289 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the landlord under Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority declining the order of eviction which was sought by him on the ground of subletting. The Rent Control Court also had declined the order of eviction sought for and it is confirming the order of the Rent Control Court that the Appellate Authority passed the impugned judgment. 2. We have heard Sri.K.Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord and Sri.T.M.Chandran, the learned counsel for the respondents/ tenants. Even though Sri.Ramachandran addressed us in detail on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of R. C. R. No.289 of 2010 -2- revision assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority, having scanned the above judgment and having reminded ourselves of the contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 20 which is revisional in nature, we did not notice any warrant for interference. However, we thought that this is a case where the parties should be advised to have a quietus to the disputes by directing the tenants to pay and the landlord to receive reasonable rent for the premises in question. Accordingly, on the basis of the discussions we had at the Bar with the counsel on either side we passed the following order on 08/06/11:- “Senior counsel Sri.K.Ramachandran will enquire of his client whether his client is prepared to receive from the tenant a sum of ` 6,000/- as rent with effect form 01/07/2011. Post on 14/06/2011.” 3. Today the landlord, Sri.K.A.Abdul Salam is present before us. We spoke to him. Sri.K.Ramachandran submitted that though the landlord insisted on getting at least ` 7,000/- R. C. R. No.289 of 2010 -3- per mensem with a clause that the rent will stand enhanced every year at the rate of 10%, he was able to persuade him to agree to the suggestion of ` 6,000/- by the court subject to the rider that every year the rent should be stand enhanced by 10%. At our request, the landlord has agreed that he will receive the monthly rent of ` 6,000/- together with a clause for renewal of the rent at 5% in every year. Sri.Chandran submitted that the tenant will oblige to any order this Court may pass regarding the rent. But Sri.Chandran complained that the landlord has stopped supply of electricity to the tenanted premises and the tenant is now finding it extremely difficulty to conduct his cycle repairing works. Strong exception was taken to the submission made by Sri.Chandran by the landlord who was present before us. According to the landlord, the tenant moved the Accommodation Controller with the complaint that the landlord has disconnected the electricity supply. R. C. R. No.289 of 2010 -4- The Accommodation Controller after holding enquiry found that the complaint was baseless. According to the landlord, the tenant is even now consuming electricity in the tenanted premises. Sri.Chandran's response to the above stand of the landlord was that his client is using an inverter. 4. Having considered the submissions addressed at the Bar and the discussions we had with the landlord, we are inclined to dispose of the RCR issuing the following directions:- The judgment of the Appellate Authority is confirmed. The rent payable by the first respondent/tenant will stand enhanced with effect form 01/07/11 at ` 6,000/- per mensem subject to a further condition that every 12 months, the rent will stand automatically enhanced by 5% of the previous year's rent. The Assistant Engineer or any other Engineer in- charge of Electrical Section, Thriprayar is directed to ensure that there is uninterrupted supply of electricity to the R. C. R. No.289 of 2010 -5- tenanted premises. The Rent Control Court, Chavakkad will dispose of the RCP.2/06 on the basis of the rent fixation done as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE N. K. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE kns/-