IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 327 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.24/2010 of I ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, TRIVANDRUM RCP.6/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REV.PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.JAYA, D/O.PADMINI, AGED 44 YEARS, TC 20/2764, MEKKONAM, ETTUMURI, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.MAHESWARI, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.PADMINI, RESIDING DO. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S):/ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & LRS OF DECEASED RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.RETHINAM, W/O.RAJAGOPALAN, CHEBECKALAVILAKATHU VEEDU, ANDIYIRAKKAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.RAMANI, D/O.PADMINI, TC 20/2764, MEKKONAM, ETTUMURI, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KANNAN, S/O.PADMINI, RESIDING DO. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 327 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 by the tenants is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court on the ground of arrears of rent under section 11 (2)(b). 2. Even though apparently attractive grounds have been raised in the memorandum of revision and Sri.Cibi Thomas, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, addressed arguments before us on the basis of all those grounds including the ground that the revision petitioners are having kudikidappu rights over the building in question, having scanned the judgment of the appellate authority and the order of the rent control court and having considered the submissions addressed before us by Sri.Jayaraj, learned counsel for the respondents, we do not find any infirmity about the judgment of the appellate authority as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. As there is no RCR.No.327/2010 2 illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the appellate authority, the revision will have to fail and we dismiss the revision. However, considering the last appeal of Mr.Cibi Thomas that at least two months time be granted for getting order of eviction vacated by making deposits under Section 11(2)(c), even as we dismiss the Rent Control Revision confirming the order of eviction, we grant to the revision petitioners five weeks time from today for making balance deposits and getting the order of eviction formally vacated under Section 11 (2)(c) by the Rent Control Court. We clarify that the revision petitioners will have to deposit the entire arrears, as found by the rent control court and the rent which has fallen due subsequently till the date of filing of application under Section 11(2)(c), less any amount paid after the rent control court passed its order. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk