IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30732 of 2007(H) -------------------------- RCRP.2/2007 of ADDL.D.C. & ADDL.MACT,ALAPPUZHA. RCP.50/1990 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF,ALAPPUZHA (EA 34/2005 IN EP 197/1994) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.JOSEPH, S/O. OUSEPH VARGHESE, AGED 75 YEARS, KULAKKATTU HOUSE, THATHEMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEVAYANIAMMA, W/O. KARTHEKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. S.K.PREMACHANDRAN, S/O. KARTHEKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. S.K.VINAYACHANDRAN, S/O. KARTHEKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 4. S.K.KISHOREKUMAR, S/O. KARTHEKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 5. S.K.SUDHEERKUMAR, S/O. KARTHEKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 6. D.SARASAMMA, D/O. KARTHIKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 7. SWARNALATHA, D/O. KARTHIKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 8. JYOTHISHMATHI, D/O. KARTHIKEYAN, KARTHIKA TOURIST HOME, SANATHANAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI FOR R1 TO 5 SRI.S.RENJITH FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30732 of 2007(H) A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN RCP NO.49/1990, 50/1990 PASSED ON 30/9/1992 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/2/2005 IN EA NO.8/2003 IN EP NO.197/1994 IN RCP NO.50/1990. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1412/2005 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN RCRP NO.2/2005. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/7/2006 IN WPC NO.9332/2006 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.104 DATED 22/07/2006 ISSUED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/9/2006 IN E.A.NO.34/2005 IN EP NO.197/1994 IN RCP NO.50/1990 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/03/2007 IN RCRP NO.5/2006 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/07/2007 IN E.A.NO.34/2005 IN E.P.NO.197/2004 IN RCRP NO.50/1990. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/09/2007 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN RCRP NO.2/2007 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2/4/2007 IN WP(C) NO.33554/2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENTS EXTS: EXT.R5(1) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE UNDERTAKING FILED IN RCP NO.50/1990. \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.30732/2007-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. One of the tenants who was evicted in a rent control proceedings is before us. He is aggrieved by Ext.P9 decision of the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for short, 'the Act'). Eviction was ordered on the specific undertaking of the predecessor of interest of the respondents that he will re-induct the tenants after reconstruction. After reconstruction, some of the tenants have already been re-inducted. In the case of the petitioner herein, however, a plea was raised by the landlady that the undertaking given at the time of reconstruction is to provide a room in the building and not specifically in the ground floor. This was repelled by the Rent Control Court and was ordered to give room in the western side of the building. The landlady filed appeal. The Appellate Authority reversed that order under the Act and held that the conclusion reached by the Rent Control Court that the tenant must be given a room in the ground floor on the western side of the reconstructed building cannot be sustained and, whether the room in the upstairs is having W.P.(C).No.30732/2007 -:2:- the same advantage or convenience is a matter which the court has to resolve on the basis of materials to be adduced by the parties. Hence, for such matters, the Appellate Authority set aside the revision petition and remanded the matter to the court below against which the tenant has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P9. 2. On an earlier occasion, another tenant had filed W.P.(C). No.33554/2006, wherein also the same contention as is now raised herein was raised and this Court did not accept the contention of the landlady and, by Ext.P10 judgment, this Court in clear terms held that the landlady has the obligation to provide the tenant a room in the ground floor itself as required in the Act and quashed Ext.P3 impugned in that writ petition. In such circumstances, a different view is not possible to be taken. We are bound by Ext.P10. Accordingly, we hold that the landlady has the obligation to provide the tenant a room in the ground floor itself and in that view of the matter the order passed by the Appellate Authority without referring to Ext.P10 judgment of this Court is clearly wrong and erroneous. We quash the same and restore Ext.P8 order. The writ petition is allowed as above. Since in Ext.P10 this Court had fixed the rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month on ad hoc basis, we direct that on allotment of the shop room in the ground floor, as held by the Rent Control Court, the tenant will be W.P.(C).No.30732/2007 -:3:- bound to pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month provisionally, and the dispute regarding the actual rent payable be adjudicated and the rent paid till then will be given due credit. It goes without saying that the tenant has to execute usual rent agreement as in the case of the other tenants. (P.R. Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms