IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 RCRev..No. 26 of 2009() ----------------------- RCA.96/2007 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.60/2006 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/CROSS APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M.B.SURESH, S/O.BAVAN,AGED 27 YRS, BUSINESS, MANAKKAMALIL HOUSE, CHALIKKAVATTOM KARA, VENNALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT APPELLANTS & PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. P.R.PRASANNAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 50 YRS KUTTUVAKKAD HOUSE, MUHAMMA.P.O, NOW RESIDING AT KUBALAM.P.O,KUMBALAM VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM, REP.BY POWER HOLDER, P.R.RAMESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN AGED 59 YRS DEV NIVAS,S.N.PURAM,BY VIRTUE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 18/1/2006. 2. JAMEELA PRASANNA, W/O.PRASANNAN,AGED 43 YRS,KUTTUVAKKAD HOUSE,MUHAMMA.P.O,NOW RESIDING AT KUMBALAM.P.O,-DO-VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM,REP.BY P/A HOLDER P.R.RAMESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 59 YEARS, DEV NIVAS, S.N.PURAM. ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.JOHN VIPIN FOR R1 &2 SMT.S.A.SHERLY FOR R1 & 2 SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE FOR R1 & 2 SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI FOR R1 & 2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.26 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. In this revision petition, the tenant who had lodged a cross appeal before the rent control appellate authority impugns the order of the rent control appellate authority dismissing the cross appeal. The cross appeal was directed against the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b). Though Sri.C.P.Peethambaran, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us very strenuously, we are not persuaded to hold that the decision taken concurrently by the rent control court and the appellate authority that the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground under Section 11(2)(b) is tainted by any irregularity, illegality or impropriety warranting correction under the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 1965. The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not disputed. Also not in dispute is the fact that a statutory demand notice as envisaged by Section 11(2)(b) was sent. It is not contended even for a moment that during the period of 15 days of receiving the demand notice arrears demanded in the notice was discharged. Orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) are only provisional orders which are liable to vacated by the RCR.No.26/09 2 rent control court upon the tenant paying or depositing the arrears of rent invoking the provisions of Section 11(2)(c). 2. Sri.Peethambaran would submit that atleast six month's time be granted for filing the requisite application under Section 11(2)(c). Sri.Shyjan.C.George, learned counsel for the respondent opposes this request stiffly. Having regard to the submissions addressed, we are of the view that there is justification for granting time till 06/04/2009 to the petitioner to make payment/deposit of arrears of rent with statutory interest etc. and get the order under Section 11(2)(b) vacated under Section 11(2)(c). Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is given time till 06/04/2009 for making the requisite payment/deposit and get the order vacated under Section 11(2)(c). It is needless to mention that in view of the above order, all proceedings for execution will stand put off by the execution court till 08/04/2009. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.26/09 2