IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 RCRev..No. 303 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.22/2005 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.147/2003 of III ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT & RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER - APPELLANT - RESPONDENT ----------------------------- SAMEER KATHURIA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUBHASH KATHURIA, 40/6930, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT - PETITIONERS --------------- 1. C.A.LATHEEF, AGED 51 YEARS,S/O.ABDULLA, CHETTIPARAMBIL, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. BEENA, AGED 43 YEARS,W/O.C.A.LATHEEF, CHETTIPARAMBIL, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS FOR R1 & 2 SRI.JOJO GEORGE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS FOR R1 & 2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. --------------------------------------------- R.C.R. 303 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 1, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition filed under sec.20 of Act 2/1965 is a summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam under sec.12(3) of Act 2/1965 and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. 2. We have heard Sri S.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri A.V.Thomas, learned counsel for the respondents, extensively. 3. Though Sri S.Sreekumar argued that the impugned order and the judgment are vitiated, we are not persuaded to hold, having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under sec.20, that the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court is vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting correction under sec.20 of the Act. It is R.C.R. 303 OF 2008 2 transparently clear that even now substantial amounts are payable by the revision petitioner to the respondents towards arrears of rent payable in respect of the sublet building at the agreed rate of Rs.50,000/- per mensem. Ordinarily, we would have been inclined to straight away confirm the impugned orders and dismiss the RCR. But it is brought to our notice that the only eviction ground which was invoked before the Rent Control Court was the ground under sec.11(2)(b) and it is also brought to our notice that subsequently the respondents/landlords have filed fresh RCP 167/2004 invoking the substantial ground under clause (i) of sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 and sec.11(4)(i). After all, eviction orders to be passed under sec.11(2) are tentative which are liable to be vacated upon the tenant depositing or paying the arrears of rent found within the time allowed by the Rent Control Court. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the impugned eviction order can be treated for the purpose of deciding this RCR as akin to one passed under sec.11(2)(b) of the Act. 4. Accordingly, despite our finding that the order is not vitiated for the purpose of sec.20, we are inclined to dispose of the RCR issuing the following directions:- R.C.R. 303 OF 2008 3 The impugned eviction orders will stand set aside if the revision petitioner pays to the respondents Rs.33,57,500/- either directly by cash or by pay order or demand draft either directly or through the respondents' counsel in this Court on or before 1.7.2009. It is clarified that if the payment is not made as directed above, the impugned judgment/order will stand confirmed and the RCR will stand dismissed. It is clarified further that in this judgment we have not decided the correctness of the amount actually due to the respondents towards arrears of rent and that issue will be decided by the Rent Control Court. Once payment is made, this judgment setting aside the impugned orders will become operative and the Rent Control Court will special list the RCP for trial and dispose of the same in accordance with law. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/- The figure 'Rs.33,57,500/-' shown in the 2nd line in page No.3 of the final order dated 1.6.2009 in RCR No.303/2008 is corrected as 'Rs.3,92,500/-' vide order dated 2.7.2009 in R.C.R. 303 OF 2008 4 I.A.No.1406/2009 in RCR No.303/2008. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)