IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 RCRev..No. 6 of 2003(B) ---------------------------- RCA.14/2000 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY), ERNAKULAM RCP.78/1997 of ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------- SANTHAKUMARI PILLAI, D/O.LAKSHMI PILLAI, RESIDING IN THACHAPILLIL HOUSE, POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.H.SIVARAMAN SRI.MATHEW CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. ELIZABETH JOY, W/O.JOY, THANNIKKAL HOUSE, THALACODE P.O., THALACODE DESOM, KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ROY GEORGE, POYKATTIL HOUSE, MORAKKALA DESOM, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.6 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J The landlord is in revision and she challenges the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the Rent Control Petition to the Rent Control Court for the purposes of taking a fresh decision after permitting the tenant to prove certain documents which were produced by him before the Appellate Authority. The Revision Petitioner/landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground of subletting. The tenant's defence to the ground of subletting was that there is no subletting and that the alleged sub- lessee is a partner of the tenant and that there is a R. C. R. No.6 of 2003 -2- registered partnership between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. Several documents were produced by the tenant before the Rent Control Court for substantiating the defence. The Rent Control Court, however, highlighted certain admissions made by the tenant in evidence and repelled the defence of partnership raised by the tenant. Accordingly, eviction was ordered on the ground of subletting. 2. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant produced further documents supporting his defence that the jural relationship between him and the alleged sub-lessee is that of partners. The Appellate Authority marked those documents and passed an order of remand of the RCP to the Rent Control Court for enabling the tenant to prove the documents in accordance with law. It is that order of R. C. R. No.6 of 2003 -3- remand which is under challenge in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. 3. We have heard submissions of Sri.H.Sivaraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Mr.C.J.Joy, the learned counsel for the respondent. Even though Mr.Sivaraman, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlady addressed us strenuously on the basis of the various grounds raised in this revision memorandum, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority by the parameters which are applicable to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the said jurisdiction. After all, it is only an order of remand which has been passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority for the purpose of enabling the tenant to prove certain R. C. R. No.6 of 2003 -4- documents for the purpose of substantiating a specific defence taken by the tenant to the ground of sub lessee. We therefore, decline to interfere with the impugned judgment. 4. At the same time, we feel that the current monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- being paid by the tenant for the petition scheduled building which is situated in an important area of Thripunithura town is low. This rent fixed in the year 1993 is far below the rent which the building will fetch if rented out today. Even as we are confirming the impugned judgment, we are inclined to re-fix the rent tentatively at Rs.2,000/- per mensem. The revision respondent/tenant shall pay rent for the building at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per mensem with effect from 1st October, 2009. It is made clear that the above fixation is only tentative. It R. C. R. No.6 of 2003 -5- is open to either side to move the competent court for having the fair rent of the building fixed in accordance with law. 5. The Rent Control Court will expedite matters and ensure that the revised judgment pursuant to the order of remand passed by the Appellate Authority is passed at the earliest, and at any rate, within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. 6. This RCR is disposed of as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-