IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No.290 of 2010 --------------------------- RCA.11/2005 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR RCP.59/2001 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ PAULY, S/O CHETTUPUZHAKARAN JOSEPH, PUTHENVETTUVAZHY, PALLIKULAM, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- GEORGE, S/O PULIKKOTTIL VAREED, UDAYA NAGAR, MYLIPADAM, THRISSUR – 680001. SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN – CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.290 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the summary order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of Act 2 of 1965. It is submitted by Sri.G.Sreekumar that after the impugned summary order of eviction was passed by the Rent Control Court, the entire amount which was payable by the revision petitioner was paid off. The learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority did notice the above aspect, however, R. C. R. No.290 of 2010 -2- expressed helplessness for giving relief to the tenant on the reason that unlike order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b), summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) cannot be vacated on the basis of subsequent deposits. Sri.V.K. Balachandran, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of this RCR submitted that it is true that after the order of eviction under Section 12 (3) was passed by the Rent Control Court, the petitioner discharged the admitted arrears of rent which was found by the Rent Control Court. But, according to him, such discharge will not automatically result in the summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) being vacated. He submitted that as on today inclusive of the cost R. C. R. No.290 of 2010 -3- incurred by the landlord a sum of Rs.20,000/- will be due to the landlord. 2. On going through the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged under Section 20 justifying invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. But we notice that this is a case where eviction was sought by the landlord under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) and that the merits of those grounds were never enquired into by the Rent Control Court. We feel that even if it be by imposing stringent terms, the revision petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to contest the Rent Control Petition on merits. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment and the order of the R. C. R. No.290 of 2010 -4- Rent Control Court and direct that the Rent Control Petition will be enquired into and disposed of by the Rent Control Court on merits subject to the following conditions:- a) The rent payable by the revision petitioner for the building will stand re-fixed with effect from 1st November, 2010 at Rs.4,000/- per mensem. This fixation is tentative and if either party is aggrieved he is free to move the Rent Control Court for regular fixation of fair rent under Section 5. Till fair rent is so fixed, the revision petitioner shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per mensem. b) The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent either directly or though the respondent's counsel in this Court R. C. R. No.290 of 2010 -5- within two weeks from today and produce receipt before the Rent Control Court. Once the above payment of Rs.20,000/- is made, the rent due as on today inclusive of the rent for September, 2010 in respect of the building will stand discharged completely. c) The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent as cost either directly or through the respondent's counsel in this Court within the above said period and produce receipt before the Rent Control Court. We make it clear that this order will become operative only upon the revision petitioner complying with all the above conditions. Once the Rent Control Court notices receipts against payment of the two amounts mentioned above the R. C. R. No.290 of 2010 -6- RCP will stand restored and the Rent Control Court will post the RCP for trial. Since the RCP is of the year 2001 top priority will be given by the Rent Control Court and at any rate, it will be ensured that the RCP is disposed of on merits within three months of parties entering appearance before the Rent Control Court pursuant to this order. Parties will enter appearance before the Rent Control Court on 15/10/10. The Rent Control Court will give one opportunity to both sides for taking pretrial steps. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-