IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 RCRev..No. 76 of 2011() ----------------------- RCA.26/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KOZHIKODE-III RCP.23/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------- SASI, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, KONDOTHKUNHI HOUSE, KUNNATHARA AMSOM, KANNUR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ CHANDRAN NAMBI,, S/O.VASU, THODUVAYIL HOUSE, ULLIYERI AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ULLIYERI, KOYILANDY TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 76 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(2)(b) (ground of arrears of rent) of the Act. The contention prominently raised by the tenant was that he had entrusted with the landlord a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs as advance and that the landlord is bound to adjust the rent in arrears against the amount paid as advance. The authorities below did not become inclined to accept the above contention. According to them, what was sought for was only a tentative eviction order under Section 11 (2)(b) which is liable to be vacated by making requisite payment or deposit. The question whether the tenant had paid advance is not very much relevant. 2. In this revision various grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Sri.R.K.Muralidharan, RCR.No.76/2011 2 learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Reghunathan v. Varghese (2005 (4) KLT 147 (SC). According to Mr.Muralidharan, in that judgment the Supreme Court has referred to earlier judgments of this court in Modern Hotel v. K.Radhakrishnaiah (1989 (2) SCC 686), K.Narasimha Rao v. T.M.Nasimuddin Ahmed (1996 3 SCC 45) and held that in a situation where the landlord has received substantial amount by way of advance and the rent allegedly in arrears is not much, the landlord will not be justified in seeking eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. 3. We are not very much impressed by the submission of the learned counsel. It is seen on a reading of paragraph 14 of the judgment in Reghunathan v. Varghese(cited supra) that the Supreme Court has referred to the judgment of this court in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 848) and observed that as Section 8 has been struck down, the issue whether the rent is in arrears will have to be decided without reference to Section 8. When the issue is considered without referring to Section 8, it will have to be found that the landlord is entitled to retain the entire sum of Rs.7 Lakhs as advance even if as RCR.No.76/2011 3 alleged by the tenant so much of amount was paid to the landlord. We also notice that in Reghunathan's case, the relief that was given by the Supreme Court to the tenant was only two months time to move the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (2)(c) of the Act. According to us, the present revision petitioner is not eligible for any better relief. We dismiss the revision in limine. However, we grant to the revision petitioner two months time from today to get the order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) vacated by filing necessary application before the Rent Control Court under Section 11 (2)(c) of the Act. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk