IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 RCRev..No. 44 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.184/2006 of DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. RCP.60/2004 of ADDL.M.C/RENT CONTROL COURT.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. PARAMBILADATH CHANDRAN AGED 54 YEARS,S/O.EDOTH KANDAKUTTY RESIDING AT MAKKADA AMSOM & DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. P.RAVEENDRAN AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.EDOTH KANDAKUTTY RESIDING AT MAKKADA AMSOM & DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. PARAMBILADATH CHOYICHI, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.EDOTH KANDAKUTTY RESIDING AT MAKKADA AMSOM & DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. PARAMBILADATH KAMALA,AGED 63 YEARS D/O.EDOTH KANDAKUTTY, RESIDING AT MAKKADA AMSOM & DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 5. AMBAYAPURATH VISALAKSHI AGED 60 YEARS,D/O.EDOTH KANDAKUTTY, RESIDING AT NANMINDA AMSOM & DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 6. PARAMBILADATH SAVITHRI AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.EDOTH KANDAKUTTY, PANAMARAM AMSOM,DESOM,WYNAD DISTRICT (C/O.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,PROPRIETOR RADHESH CINEMA) 7. PARAMBILADATH RADHA AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.EDOTH KANDAKUTTY, KADAPPAMANNIL, VENGERI AMSOM & DESOM RCR 44/2008 KOZHIKODE TALUK. 8. EDOTH SARASWATHY AGED 61 YEARS,.W/O.BALAN RESIDING AT MAKKADA AMSOM & DESOM'KOZHIKODE TALUK. 9. EDOTH PRAMOD,AGED 41 YEARS,S/O.BALAN RESIDING AT MAKKADA AMSOM & DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 10. EDOTH BIJU,AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.BALAN RESIDING AT MAKKADA AMSOM & DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 11. EDOTH SHYJA, AGED 34 YEARS,D/O.BALAN KIZHAKKEDATH MEETHAL HOUSE PAVAYIL CHEEP, THALAKULATHUR AMSOM, DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 12. EDOTH PREETHI AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.BALAN, KUTTOTH HOUSE KATCHERI AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL SACHEENDRAN RESPONDENT: APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------- VYLASSERI REMADEVI AGED 53 YEARS,D/O.VASUDEVAN RESIDING AT SRI.SANKAR KOTTOLI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY SRI. R.SUDHISH (CAVEATOR) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.C.R. NO.44 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 18th February, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The tenants are the revision petitioners. The landlady is the respondent. The Rent Control Petition was filed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as “the Act”). The Rent Controller dismissed the application on both the grounds. The appellate authority partially reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and allowed the application under Section 11(2)(b). The rate of rent found by the Rent Controller was Rs.26.75. But, the appellate authority held that the rent payable is Rs.500/-. It was also held that the rent is in arrears from 23.3.1995 and since the tenants failed to pay the same, the landlady is entitled to get eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said finding, this revision is filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The main point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is that the rate RCR 44/2008 2 of rent has been found as Rs.500/- by the appellate authority, relying on the decision in O.S. No.617/1998, which was affirmed in A.S.No.242/2003. The revision petitioners pointed out that the said appeal happened to be dismissed for default and their application for restoration of it is pending. There is every chance of the application being allowed and if the appeal is heard on merits, the decision is likely to be in their favour. Therefore, pending the appeal, the reliance placed by the appellate authority on the rate of rent fixed by the Munsiff's Court is unjustified, it is submitted. The learned counsel also pointed out that regarding the maintainability of the restoration application filed by the tenants in the aforementioned appeal, the appellate authority has made certain adverse observations. If the same is allowed to stand, it will seriously prejudice them. So, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners prayed for appropriate directions on the above two submissions. We also heard the learned counsel for the respondent on the above two points made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 3. As things stand now, the revision petitioners have to pay rent at the rate of Rs.500/- for vacating the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. But, if ultimately the above appeal suit is allowed and the rent is reduced, the revision petitioners can claim refund of the excess amount paid RCR 44/2008 3 towards rent or adjust the same towards future rent. We also clarify that the observations made by the appellate authority regarding the merits of the restoration application filed by the revision petitioners in A.S.No.242/2003, will not prejudice the petitioners nor the appellate court will be influenced by the same. The Rent Control Revision is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/