IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 181 of 2010()
1. ABY, S/O.JACOB,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOCHURANI, W/O.URUMEES, THALIYATH HOUSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :06/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
----------------------------------
R.C.R. No.181 of 2010
----------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
—————
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision filed by the
tenant under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment
of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the
order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner by
the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority
concurrently on the ground of arrears of rent under
Section 11(2)(b) of Act 2 of 1965. The rental
arrangement pleaded by the landlord is not disputed in
the sense that the monthly contract rent of Rs.7,350/- per
mensem is not disputed. The allegation of the landlord
was that rent is in arrears from 1.4.2007 and that as on
date of issuance of the statutory demand notice a sum of
Rs.1,39,910/- is due. The tenant/revision petitioner filed
objections raising various contentions. The sum and
RCR.181/2010
2
substance of the contention is that the allegation
regarding arrears is not correct and that the landlord did
not issue receipts even after having received rent from
the tenant as and when the same fell due. Apart from the
oral evidence adduced by the parties, tenant/revision
petitioner relied mostly on Ext.B1 rent payment entry
book. This was a self-serving document. Of course, the
above document contained a signature apparently put by
the landlord. The genuineness of the above signature
was stiffly disputed by the landlord. The Rent Control
Court was not very much impressed by the purported
signature of landlord on Ext.B1. The Rent Control Court
took the view that the tenant has the obligation to prove
that he has discharged the entire arrears of rent and
accordingly passed an order of eviction under Section 11
(2)(b). The Appellate Authority by the judgment
confirming the order of Rent Control Court referred to
Section 9 of the Act which provides for the procedure to
RCR.181/2010
3
be adopted by a tenant whose landlord is unwilling to
issue receipts for the rent that is actually paid. The
Appellate Authority holds rightly that Ext.B1, the
genuineness of which is disputed seriously, cannot be
accepted at any rate as a rent receipt as envisaged by
Section 9. Ultimately concurring with the learned Rent
Control Court the appeal preferred by the revision
petitioner was dismissed.
2. In this revision under Section 20 various
grounds are raised assailing the judgment of the Rent
Control Court. The learned counsel for the revision
petitioner Sri.Santhoshkumar addressed strenuous
arguments based on those grounds. According to him,
the appreciation of the evidence by the statutory
authorities was erroneous and this was resulted an
injustice. We are unable to agree. Having appreciated
Ext.B1 document ourselves, we do not find reason to
disagree with the Rent Control Court’s view about that
RCR.181/2010
4
document. Plea of discharge is a plea to be substantiated
by the party raising pleadings. Section 9 of the Rent
Control Act provides a remedy for the tenant whose
landlord is unwilling to issue receipts for the rent
actually paid. According to us, the view taken in this
case, both by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate
Authority, is not vitiated by any illegality, irregularity or
impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965.
3. The result is that the RCR will fail and will
stand dismissed. However, in view of the totality of the
circumstances which attained on this case we feel that a
period of two months can be granted to the revision
petitioner for getting the eviction order passed under
Section 11(2)(b) vacated by filing appropriate application
under Section 11(2)(c). The learned Appellate Authority
has in fact recognized the above statutory right of the
tenant and has indicated that the Rent Control Court
while considering application under Section 11(2)(c) will
RCR.181/2010
5
give due credit for all payments evidenced by records
made during the pendency of the RCP. We reiterate the
above direction and grant to the revision petitioner two
months time from today.
4. We are informed that the execution court has
already ordered delivery and that unless this court stays
the order of delivery the petitioner stands the risk of
being dispossessed tomorrow itself. Considering the
above submissions we have today passed a separate
order in I.A.1682/2010 which is an application for stay
filed by the revision petitioner.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb