IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 182 of 2010()
1. A.S.VISWANATHAN, S/O.SANKU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INDIAN COMMUNIST PARTY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.CHATHUKUTTY NAMBIAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :08/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.Nos. 163 & 182 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The landlord is in revision. He sought to evict the
respondents in R.C.R. No.182/2010 invoking grounds of arrears
of rent under section 11(2)(b) and the ground of reconstruction
under Section 11 (4)(iv). Similarly, he sought to evict the
respondent in R.C.R. No.163/2010 invoking the above two
grounds and also the additional ground of sub letting under
Section 11(4)(i). The Rent Control Court tried both the Rent
Control Petitions jointly and after enquiry allowed both the Rent
Control Petitions on the grounds of arrears of rent and
reconstruction. The ground of sub letting, which was urged in
R.C.P.No.4/2003 corresponding to RCR No.163/2010, was
declined and the landlord did not challenge that decision before
the Appellate Authority. Thus, we need be concerned in these
two revisions only with grounds of arrears of rent under Section
11(2)(b) and the ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)
(iv).
RCR.No.163 & 182/2010 2
2. The Appellate Authority by the impugned judgment
confirmed the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (4)(iv),
but vacated the eviction granted on the ground of arrears of rent
on the reason that the statutory intimation notice under the
proviso to Section 11(2)(b) was not issued. It had become
evident in the case that the statutory notice, which was intended
for the respondent in RCR No.163/2010, was sent to the
respondent in RCR No.182/2010 and the notice intended for the
respondent in RCR NO.182/2010 was served on the respondent in
RCR No.163/2010. Obviously, the notices served on the parties
did not contain information regarding the default actually caused
by the parties. The Appellate Authority, therefore, took the view
that the Rent Control Petitions to the extent they pertain to the
ground of arrears of rent were not preceded by proper notices.
The Rent Control Court also considered the same issue.
However, passed order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b)
noticing that on a previous occasion, the landlord had issued
statutory notices under the proviso to Section 11 (2) (b) to both
the tenants and had in fact instituted petitions for eviction on the
ground of arrears of rent. According to the Rent Control Court,
RCR.No.163 & 182/2010 3
those notices will be sufficient notices for the present
proceedings. For taking such a view, the learned Rent Control
Court relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in
Narayanan v. Vinod (2004 (3) KLT 955), which takes the view
that it is not necessary to issue a show cause notice to the
tenant before a summary order of eviction under Section 12(3) is
passed against him and it is sufficient that the tenant gets
sufficient time for showing cause against the proposed summary
order of eviction. The above decision cannot have any
application to the present case where eviction is on the ground
under Section 11 (2) (b). We notice that the Rent Control Court
has made an observation that the earlier Rent Control Petition
invoking ground of arrears of rent is notice to the tenant
regarding his default. May be the earlier rent control petition
was notice to the tenant regarding the landlord’s complaint that
the tenant is a defaulting tenant. But, question is whether the
mandatory notice, as required by the proviso to Section 11(2)
(b), has preceded the present Rent Control Petition. That
question has to be answered in the negative. The requirement of
the statute is that a notice must be sent to the tenant intimating
RCR.No.163 & 182/2010 4
the tenant of the default. The default in the present case is
obviously the default which occurred subsequent to the filing of
the earlier RCP. Hence, the notice sent as prelude for the earlier
RCP can not under any circumstances be sufficient statutory
notice for the present RCP. We therefore do not find any
infirmity about the view taken by the Appellate Authority in the
context of ground under Section 11 (2) (b).
3. The Appellate Authority has under the impugned
judgment confirmed the order of eviction passed under Section
11 (4)(iv) and has also provided that the tenants will be entitled
for induction to the reconstructed building subject to their liability
to pay fair rent. The landlord cannot have any legitimate
grievance regarding this direction by the Appellate Authority
since even without such a direction, a tenant who is evicted on
the basis of an order under Section 11(4)(iv) is statutorily
entitled for such re induction. In short, we do not find any
infirmity in the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority
warranting interference of the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 20.
4. As for the landlord’s grievance regarding the rent in
RCR.No.163 & 182/2010 5
arrears, we make it clear that it is always open to the landlord to
initiate fresh proceedings under Section 11 (2)(b), if so advised
after issuing proper notice to the respondent.
The Revision Petitions are dismissed.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk