IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No.14932 of 2010(N) -------------------------------- RCA.18/2008 of D.C. COURT,KOLLAM RCP.1/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------- ABDUL KHAREEM, NIAZ MANZIL, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- SOORYA, KOODUPARA PADINJATTETHIL, MUSLIM STREET, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.14932 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 227 is Ext.P5 order by which the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed I.A.606/10 filed by the petitioner for restoration of RCA.18/08. The RCA was filed by the petitioner against an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Kottarakkara on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. This was not the first time that the RCA got dismissed for default. On a previous occasion RCA was dismissed for default, but restored to file on the basis of an W. P. C. No.14932 of 2010 -2- application filed by the petitioner. I.A.602/10 pertains to the dismissal of the RCA on 22/03/10. The ground urged by the petitioner in the restoration application is that his Advocate was on his legs before the local Fast Track Court arguing a criminal appeal. The learned District Judge under Ext.P5 order has observed that the above ground does not appeal much, and that the petitioner has never been very enthusiastic in the matter of arguing the appeal. As we scan Ext.P5 by the yardsticks applicable to invocation of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227, it is difficult to say that Ext.P5 order is so wholly unreasonable as to justify invocation of the above jurisdiction which is visitorial in nature. At the same time, we feel that in the present case W. P. C. No.14932 of 2010 -3- where eviction order has been passed against the petitioner on the basis of a fulfledged enquiry conducted by the Rent Control Court and the petitioner filed RCA invoking his statutory appellate remedy under Section 18, a disposal of the appeal on merits should be facilitated even it be by imposing stringent terms on the petitioner. As we are in agreement with the learned District Judge that there was laxity on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the appeal, we are inclined to grant relief to him only on terms. It is agreed to before us by both sides that the building in question is situated in a prime commercial area of Kottarakkara and that the current rent of Rs.800/- paid by the petitioner is far below the rent which the building will fetch if let out today. We take W. P. C. No.14932 of 2010 -4- that also into account while fixing terms. The result of the above discussion will be as follows. Ext.P5 will stand set aside and I.A.606/10 will stand allowed subject to the following conditions:- 1) Rent payable by the petitioner for the building in question will stand re-fixed at Rs.1,200/- per mensem with effect from 01/07/10. This re-fixation is tentative and is subject to regular fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court on application by either side. 2) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost to the respondent either directly or through her counsel in this Court within seven days from today. 3) The petitioner shall pay a further amount of Rs.2,000/- to the High Court Legal Services W. P. C. No.14932 of 2010 -5- Committee within the same time limit. This judgment setting aside Ext.P5 will become operative only when the Rent Control Appellate Authority notices receipt against payment of amounts mentioned above and also an affidavit filed by the petitioner before that authority, within seven days from today, stating that with effect from 01/07/10 he shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.1,200/-. 2. Once the appellate authority finds that this judgment has become operative, the RCA will be posted peremptorily for final hearing and both sides shall be ready for hearing on the same day. The learned Appellate Authority shall take up hearing of the appeal and dispose of the appeal on merits (irrespective of the appearance of the W. P. C. No.14932 of 2010 -6- petitioner) at the earliest, and at any rate, within one week of the day the appeal is peremptorily posted for hearing. It is needless to mention that if the conditions stipulated above are not complied with Ext.P5 will stand confirmed. 3. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-