IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 386 of 2005(C) ------------------------ RCA.116/2000 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY RCP.379/1997 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------- THAZHEMUNDAYATTU BHASKARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 61 YEARS, CARPENTER, RESIDING AT THAZHEMUNDAYATTU HOUSE, MISSION COMPOUND, CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR-6. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.M.BENNY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- MADAKKARA JANAKI, W/O.K.T.KUMARAN, AGED 83 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT KORAJAM, CHOVVA.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.2639/2005 IN RCR.386/2005 DISMISSED. SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. 3.8.2010 okb /True copy/ P.A. to Judge PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- R.C.R. No.386 of 2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 O R D E R ---------------- Pius C.Kuriakose,J. The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against him on the ground under Section 11(3). The need projected by the landlady in the Rent Control Petition was that the building is required bonafide for the conduct of a parallel college by her son Sri.Subhakaran, who had retired as School Master. Before the Rent Control Court Sri.Subhakaran was examined as PW1. Even though the tenant was not able to make any dent in the version of PW1 that he needs to occupy the building for conducting parallel college, the Rent Control Court did not order eviction. This was because it was found that another building belonging to the landlady, mother of Sri.Subhakaran, was available and it will be possible for Mr.Subhakaran to make use of that building for the proposed need. The Appellate Authority on making a thorough re-appraisal of the evidence would interfere with the finding of the Rent Control Court RCR.386/05 2 that the RCP was liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to Section 11(3). 2. Having gone through the Appellate Authority's judgment we do not find any infirmity about the finding warranting interference with revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. But Sri.Muhammed Shameel, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted before us that Sri.Subhakaran for whom the respondent landlady sought eviction, is no more. Our attention was drawn by Sri.Shameel to the averments in the RCR. We find that the need projected was for conduct of parallel college by Sri.Subhakaran and by nobody else. Though it is indicated that Mr.Subhakaran will be maintaining the entire family with the income that he derives from the proposed parallel college, according to Mr.Shameel, the subsequent event of Sri.Subhakaran passing away has a fundamental impact on the right of the landlady to get eviction. Sri.Mohammed Mustaque, learned counsel for the landlady does not agree. According to Mr.Mustaque, though Mr.Subhakaran's need was projected in RCP, the need raised by the landlady was for more income so that the family can pull on without difficulties. Even though Mr.Mustaque's submission has some appeal to us, we do not think that we will be justified in sustaining the order of eviction accepting the above submission. According to us, the RCR.386/05 3 matter should go back to the Rent Control Court giving liberty to the landlady to amend the pleadings. 3. It is brought to our notice that the total carpet area of the building is 800 Sq.ft. and that the monthly rent that is being paid by the revision petitioner is just Rs.100/-. According to Mr.Shameel, the building does not qualify as proper building which is just a shed. Whatever it is, it is not in dispute that revision petitioner is conducting carpentry work in the building in question. We feel that the current rent of Rs.100/- is ridiculously low. Even as we are remanding the matter to the Rent Control Court, we are inclined to re-fix the rent tentatively leaving open to either parties to move the Rent Control Court for fixation of fair rent under Section 5. As we are told that the landlady has already moved the Rent Control Court by filing RCP.No.120/2010 for fixation of fair rent, we will only observe that the rent that we have fixed today will be subject to the result of that RCP. Result of the above discussion is therefore as follows: The order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority are set aside. The RCR is remanded to the Rent Control Court, Kannur. That court is directed to allow the landlady to amend the pleadings in the RCP. If application for amendment of RCP is filed by the landlady within two months RCR.386/05 4 from today, that application will be allowed by the Rent Control Court. If amendment is allowed as above, the revision petitioner will be permitted to file additional objections. Both parties will be permitted to adduce further evidence. The Rent Control Court will pass revised order on appreciation of the entire evidence which comes on record. The rent is fixed tentatively at Rs.800/- per mensem with effect from 1.9.2010. Till a fair rent is fixed by the Rent Control Court the revision petitioner shall pay the same at the rate of Rs.800/- per mensem. Parties will enter appearance before the Rent Control Court, Kannur on 2.9.2010. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb