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 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 RCRev..No. 266 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.21/2006 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLAT AUTHROITY TRIVANDRUM RCP.64/2004 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER (S): -------------------- T.V.RAMANATHAN, S/O. LATE T.R.V.SUBRAMANIAN, T.C.48/1212, THAMMAN STREET, FORT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETIONER: --------------- ATHMANANDHAN T.C.60/2344, FPSRA 184 1ST PUTHEN STREET, MANACAUD P.O. TRIVANDRUM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 266 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is the revision petitioner. He is aggrieved by the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction which was sought under Section 11(3). In fact, the landlord had sought eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and also the ground under Section 11(3). Though the Rent Control Court declined eviction on both grounds under the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority has found that the rent is in arrears and has ordered eviction under Section 11 (2)(b). According to Sri.M.Balagovindan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord, the tenant is yet to challenge the eviction order passed against him under Section 11(2)(b). The learned counsel voiced a grievance that the tenant has not paid the rent which was found to be in arrears. Since it is an executable order which has been passed by the Rent Control Court, it is open to RCR.No.266/2008 2 the revision petitioner to execute that order and evict the tenant if, in the meanwhile, the tenant does not get the eviction order under Section 11(2)(b) set aside under Section 11 (2)(c). Mr. Balagovindan submitted that the landlord's case was that the contract rent is Rs.800/- per mensem while the tenant's case was that it is only 400/- per mensem. It is the tenant's case regarding the contract rent that is accepted by the learned Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel, if the building is let out today, the same will fetch much more than even Rs.800/- per mensem. As regards this grievance, we make it clear that it is always open to the landlord to move the Rent Control Court under Section 5 of the Act for fixation of fair rent. 3. We shall deal with the question that seriously arises in this case whether there is any warrant for interfering with the judgment of the Appellate Authority declining eviction on the ground under Section 11(3) . We find that eviction order was declined concurrently by the statutory authorities invoking the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner had to concede during the course of his submission that the buildings having Door Nos. RCR.No.266/2008 3 40/53, 40/60 and 60/2184 are vacant buildings belonging to the landlord. But according to Mr.Balagovidan, those buildings are earmarked to be occupied by the landlord's son. But, as rightly noticed by the learned Appellate Authority , this reason and for that mater any other special reason has not been pleaded by the landlord in the RCP. In the absence of any plea regarding the special reasons, the learned Appellate Authority was justified in declining eviction under Section 11(3). Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the negative order passed by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (3). The revision petition fails and will stand dismissed. We make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the landlord initiating fresh proceedings against the tenant seeking eviction on all grounds, available to the landlord at the time of initiation of such fresh proceedings. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE RCR.No.266/2008 4 dpk