IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 261 of 2006()
1. S. LALEEDHARAN, S/O. N. SADASIVAN PILLAI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R. BHADRAKUMAR, S/O. RAMAN PILLAI
... Respondent
2. GEETHA NAIR, W/O. R.BHADRAKUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :14/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
R. C. R. No.261 of 2006
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011
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 order of eviction passed by the Rent Control
Court under sub Section 3 of Section 11. The petition
schedule building is Room No.1 in a larger building
belonging to the landlords. The petitioner’s father was in
occupation of the adjacent room having Door No.7. Under
the impugned common judgment, the eviction order which
had been passed by the Rent Control Court in respect of
Room No.7 stands vacated. The learned Appellate Authority
seems to be of the opinion that Room No.7 may be sufficient
to satisfy the requirements of the revision petitioner.
R. C. R. No.261 of 2006 -2-
According to the revision petitioner who is an Advocate by
profession, the total area available in Room No.1 and 7 is
just 100 sq. metres i.e. hardly sufficient for running his law
chambers. In this Court, he has filed I.A.96/11. It is stated
in the affidavit in support of the I.A. that subsequent to the
judgment of the Appellate Authority, Room Nos.6 and 8
which were previously in occupation of one Sreedharan Nair
and Advocate Francis fell vacant and the landlords have let
out room No.6 to one Advocate R.Sankaran. It is asserted
that Room No.8 continues to be under the vacant possession
of the landlord. According to the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner, the subsequent event of Room Nos.6 and
8 falling vacant and Room No.8 continuing to be under the
vacant possession of the landlord has a fundamental impact
on the landlord’s right to evict the petitioner from the
petition schedule building. We are not inclined to accept the
various submission of the learned counsel for the revision
R. C. R. No.261 of 2006 -3-
petitioner straight away. However, we also feel that the
subsequent events highlighted before us by the learned
counsel for the petitioner if true can have some bearing on
the landlord’s right to evict the tenant from the petition
schedule building. We are therefore, inclined to remit the
issue back to the Rent Control Court. At the same time, we
notice that the monthly rent which the petitioner pays for
the building which is situated very near to the court complex
at Thiruvananthapuram is far below the rent the building will
fetch if the same is let out today. It is not disputed that the
petitioner is in possession of not only the petition schedule
building (room No.1) but also of the adjacent room No.7
which was originally in the possession of his father who is no
more. We are therefore, inclined to re-fix the rent payable
by the petitioner for both these rooms with retrospective
effect from 01/02/11 at Rs.1,000/- per mensem. If either
party is aggrieved it is open to them to move the Rent
R. C. R. No.261 of 2006 -4-
Control Court by appropriate application under Section 5 for
regular fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is fixed petitioner
shall be liable to pay rent for both these rooms at the rate of
Rs.1,000/- per mensem.
2. The result of the above discussion is that the
impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order
of the Rent Control Court are set aside. RCP is remanded to
the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court will consider
the implications of the subsequent events highlighted by the
petitioner in I.A.96/11 in RCR 261/06 on the right of the
landlord to evict the tenants. This is an open remand and
the Rent Control Court is directed to take decision on all the
points which arise on the pleadings raised by the parties.
The parties will enter appearance before the court below on
17/02/11 and the Rent Control Court will complete the
enquiry and pass the revised order within three months of
the Civil Court re-opening after mid-summer vacation.
R. C. R. No.261 of 2006 -5-
Transmit Lower Court Records forthwith along with the
original of I.A.96/11. The rent payable by the revision
petitioner for the petition schedule room as well as room
No.7 also in his occupation is fixed with effect from
01/02/11 at Rs.1,000/- each per mensem. We make it clear
that the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order
of the Rent Control Court have been set aside only to the
extent they pertain to RCP No.99/97.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
kns/-