IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 OP (RC).No. 459 of 2011(O) -------------------------- I.A.2040/2010 IN RCA.118/2010 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. RAHULRAJ, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.K.P.RAVEENDRAN, O.P.11/613, MAMBUZHAKKATTU MEETHAL, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. K.P.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MUNISWAMI, O.P.11/613, MAMBUZHAKKATTU MEETHAL, OLAVANNA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THANIKKAL SUNDARAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, PUTHIYARA P.O., KOTTOOLI, PARAYANCHERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673004. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- O.P.(R.C) No.459 of 2011 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Challenge in this OP filed under Article 227 by the tenant is against Ext.P4 order. Under Ext.P4 the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has granted stay of execution of the eviction order on condition that the entire arrears of rent found by the Rent Control Court is deposited within four weeks and the petitioners/appellants continue to deposit the rent which falls due subsequently. 2. Sri.V.G.Arun, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the condition imposed under Ext.P4 is not warranted in the present case where the petitioners have denied the title of the respondent/landlord and the correctness of the finding of the court below to the O.P.(R.C) No.459 of 2011 -: 2 :- effect that the denial is not bonafide itself is under challenge. According to him, by insisting that the arrears of rent as found by the court below should be deposited, the learned Appellate Authority has virtually confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court. 3. According to us, the above submission has only superficial attractiveness what the learned Appellate Authority has done is to impose a condition for favourably exercising its discretion in the matter of granting stay of execution proceedings. We do not find any case is made out by the petitioner for invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court Article 227 for interfering with Ext.P4. We decline jurisdiction and dismiss the OP. However, we make it clear that deposit of the arrears of rent pursuant to Ext.P4 by the petitioner will be without prejudice to all the contentions raised by the petitioners in the case including the contention that there is no landlord- tenant relationship between them and the respondent. We O.P.(R.C) No.459 of 2011 -: 3 :- also direct the learned Appellate Authority to permit the landlord to withdraw the amount to be deposited pursuant to Ext.P4 only subject to the result of the RCA. Since time fixed by the Appellate Authority has already expired, we extend the time for depositing the arrears of rent by 10 days from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt