IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No. 148 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.72/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , VADAKARA RCP.29/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. DEVU, W/O.RAIRU, MALAYANDAKANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUR, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 2. GANGADHARAN, S/O.LATE RAIRU, MALAYANDAKANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUR, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 3. JANAKI, W/O.CHANDU, RESIDING AT `HILVIEW' P.O.NADAKKUTHAZHA, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 4. NARAYANI, W/O.BALAN, KUNHEERANDAVIDA HOUSE, P.O.MUTTUNGAL WEST, VATAKARA. 5. VALSALA, W/O.BALAN, KUYYALIL HOUSE, P.O.ULAVILAM. 6. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE KAIRU, CHERIYANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUR, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 7. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.RAIRU, VALLIL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUR, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 8. BIJU, S/O.LASTE SUJATHA, KAKKACHERY HOUSE, P.O.PUTHUR, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 9. VIJISHA, D/O.LATE SUJATHA, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, AVOLAM AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 10. VIJIL, S/O.LATE SUJATHA, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, AVOLAM AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.V.RAJU, S/O.LATE KANARAN, TEACHER, RESIDING AT KOKILAM, NEAR SREE NARAYANA HIGH SCHOOL, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 148 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenants under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the common judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara in RCA Nos.68/2008 & 72/2008. These RCAs were filed respectively by the landlord and the tenants against the order which was passed by the Rent Control Court. The eviction grounds invoked in the RCP were grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. The tenants' contention regarding the rate of rent was actually upheld by the Rent Control Court. However, the Rent Control Court found that the rent was in arrears even at the conceded rate of 50 per month. On that reason, eviction order was passed under Section 11(2)(b). As regards the claim under Section 11 (3), the Rent Control Court found that the tenants were entitled to the protection of the second proviso to section 11(3). Thus RCR.No.148/2010 2 eviction under section 11(3) was declined. This is why appeals were filed both by the landlord and the tenants. 2. The Appellate Authority by the impugned common judgment has set aside the order of the Rent Control Court and remanded the RCP back to the Rent Control Court for a fresh consideration regarding both the grounds. It is an open remand which has been passed by the appellate Authority. 3. Several grounds have been raised in the revision filed by the tenants. Sri.R.K.Muralidharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressing arguments on the basis of those grounds, drew our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Koyilerian Janaki And Others v. Rent Controller (Munsiff) Cannanore And Others (2000 )9 Supreme Court Cases 406). The learned counsel submitted that this is a case where there was no pleadings on the side of the landlord that the son for whom the building was sought by the landlord is a depending family member. That being so, the claim under Section 11(3) could not have been upheld. The learned counsel also submitted that the documents, which are presently ordered by the appellate authority to be considered in the context of the ground for RCR.No.148/2010 3 eviction under Section 11(2)(b), are the documents which were rightly rejected by the Rent Control Court. The learned counsel submitted that on the whole, the impugned judgment is tainted with illegality, irregularity and impropriety as envisaged by Section 20. The learned counsel further submitted that the remand order was absolutely unwarranted and the issue could have been decided by the appellate authority itself. 4. Even though Mr.R.K.Muralidharan was very persuasive in his submissions, having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view that, there is not so much of irregularity, illegality or impropriety as envisaged by section 20 in in the impugned judgment. After all, it is only a remand order which has been passed by the learned appellate authority. It is always open to the revision petitioners to highlight the judgment in Kovilerian Janaki and others (supra) before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and canvas for a decision that RCP to the extent it is filed under Section 11 (3) is liable to be dismissed. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The revision petition fails. The learned Rent Control Court, Vatakara is directed to expedite matters and pass revised RCR.No.148/2010 4 orders in strict compliance with the directions given under the impugned judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk