IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 266 of 2008()
1. T.V.RAMANATHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ATHMANANDHAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :19/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No. 266 OF 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The landlord is the revision petitioner. He is aggrieved by
the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming
the order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction which was
sought under Section 11(3). In fact, the landlord had sought
eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and also the ground
under Section 11(3). Though the Rent Control Court declined
eviction on both grounds under the impugned judgment, the
learned Appellate Authority has found that the rent is in arrears
and has ordered eviction under Section 11 (2)(b). According to
Sri.M.Balagovindan, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/landlord, the tenant is yet to challenge the eviction
order passed against him under Section 11(2)(b). The learned
counsel voiced a grievance that the tenant has not paid the rent
which was found to be in arrears. Since it is an executable order
which has been passed by the Rent Control Court, it is open to
RCR.No.266/2008 2
the revision petitioner to execute that order and evict the tenant
if, in the meanwhile, the tenant does not get the eviction order
under Section 11(2)(b) set aside under Section 11 (2)(c). Mr.
Balagovindan submitted that the landlord’s case was that the
contract rent is Rs.800/- per mensem while the tenant’s case
was that it is only 400/- per mensem. It is the tenant’s case
regarding the contract rent that is accepted by the learned
Appellate Authority. According to the learned counsel, if the
building is let out today, the same will fetch much more than
even Rs.800/- per mensem. As regards this grievance, we make
it clear that it is always open to the landlord to move the Rent
Control Court under Section 5 of the Act for fixation of fair rent.
3. We shall deal with the question that seriously arises in
this case whether there is any warrant for interfering with the
judgment of the Appellate Authority declining eviction on the
ground under Section 11(3) . We find that eviction order was
declined concurrently by the statutory authorities invoking the
first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The learned
counsel for the revision petitioner had to concede during the
course of his submission that the buildings having Door Nos.
RCR.No.266/2008 3
40/53, 40/60 and 60/2184 are vacant buildings belonging to the
landlord. But according to Mr.Balagovidan, those buildings are
earmarked to be occupied by the landlord’s son. But, as rightly
noticed by the learned Appellate Authority , this reason and for
that mater any other special reason has not been pleaded by the
landlord in the RCP. In the absence of any plea regarding the
special reasons, the learned Appellate Authority was justified in
declining eviction under Section 11(3). Hence, we are not
inclined to interfere with the negative order passed by the
Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court under Section 11
(3).
The revision petition fails and will stand dismissed. We
make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the
landlord initiating fresh proceedings against the tenant seeking
eviction on all grounds, available to the landlord at the time of
initiation of such fresh proceedings.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
RCR.No.266/2008 4
dpk