IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 149 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.20/2009 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,I,MAVELIKKARA OPRC.2/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD (IA.554/2008) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGEKUTTY, S/O.UNNUNNI, PANACHAMOOTTIL THEKKATHIL HOUSE, PUTHUKUNDAM MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAMES KUTTY OF DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- SREEDHARAN, PUNNAKKATTETHU VEETTIL, THULAMPARAMBU, NADUVATTOM MURI, HARIPAD VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 151 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.Nos. 149 & 151 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in these revision petitions filed by the landlord is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority setting aside an ex parte order of eviction, which was passed against the respondent, and directing adjudication of the rent control petition on merits imposing condition that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the revision petitioner/landlord as costs. 2. Even though several apparently serious grounds have been raised against the judgment of the Appellant Authority in the revision memoranda and Sri.K.Subashchandra Bose, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous arguments before us, we are not persuaded to hold that the exercise of discretion by the learned Appellate Authority in the matter of condoning the delay of 184 days and also in the matter of setting aside the ex parte order of eviction is vitiated to the extent of justifying interference by us in our present RCR .Nos.141 & 151/2010 2 jurisdiction under Section 20 substantially. At the same time, we feel that the learned District Judge was a little liberal towards the tenant while fixing the terms on which relief was to be given to him. It is submitted by Sri.Subashchandra Bose that the building is situated close to Haripard junction and that if the building is let out today, the same will fetch a minimum rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. 3. Sri.S.Sanal Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant sought time to seek instructions from his client regarding the locality where the building is situated and also regarding the probable rent which the building will fetch if the same is let out today. 4. We are not inclined to grant time as we do not find any reason for substantially interfering with the decision taken by the Appellate Authority to set aside the ex parte order of eviction. We are of the view, that the judgment of the Appellant Authority can be sustained on modified conditions. 5. The result of the above discussions is, therefore, as follows; i). The judgment of the Appellate Authority impugned in RCR .Nos.141 & 151/2010 3 these revision petitions will stand confirmed only if the respondent pays to the revision petitioner either directly or through his counsel in this court a further amount of Rs.2000/- as costs(cost thus totaling to Rs.5,000/-) and files an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within three weeks from today that he shall, with effect from 15th September, 2010, pay rent to the revision petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. ii). We make it clear that though we have refixed the rent as above as a condition for sustaining the relief given to the respondent, such refixation is tentative. This means that if either party is aggrieved by the refixation of rent at Rs.2,000/-, it is open to him to file regular application before the Rent Control Court under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent. iii). Once the Rent Control Court notices compliance with the above conditions, that Court will post the Rent Control Petition to the nearest available date for filing of objections by the respondent and once objections are filed, that court will, after completing the pre trial steps, ensure that the RCP is disposed of early and at any rate within four months of the day the court reopens after Onam Holidays. If there is no compliance with the RCR .Nos.141 & 151/2010 4 conditions, the judgment of the appellate authority will stand set aside and the order of the Rent Control Court, which was impugned before the Appellate Authority,will stand restored. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk