High Court Kerala High Court

Georgekutty vs Sreedharan on 18 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Georgekutty vs Sreedharan on 18 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RCRev..No. 149 of 2010()


1. GEORGEKUTTY, S/O.UNNUNNI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SREEDHARAN, PUNNAKKATTETHU VEETTIL,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :18/08/2010

 O R D E R
          PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
                     ------------------------
                 R.C.R.Nos. 149 & 151 OF 2010
                     ------------------------

             Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010

                            O R D E R

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

Under challenge in these revision petitions filed by the

landlord is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority

setting aside an ex parte order of eviction, which was passed

against the respondent, and directing adjudication of the rent

control petition on merits imposing condition that the respondent

shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the revision petitioner/landlord

as costs.

2. Even though several apparently serious grounds have

been raised against the judgment of the Appellant Authority in

the revision memoranda and Sri.K.Subashchandra Bose, learned

counsel for the revision petitioner addressed strenuous

arguments before us, we are not persuaded to hold that the

exercise of discretion by the learned Appellate Authority in the

matter of condoning the delay of 184 days and also in the

matter of setting aside the ex parte order of eviction is vitiated to

the extent of justifying interference by us in our present

RCR .Nos.141 & 151/2010 2

jurisdiction under Section 20 substantially. At the same time,

we feel that the learned District Judge was a little liberal towards

the tenant while fixing the terms on which relief was to be given

to him. It is submitted by Sri.Subashchandra Bose that the

building is situated close to Haripard junction and that if the

building is let out today, the same will fetch a minimum rent of

Rs.3,000/- per month.

3. Sri.S.Sanal Kumar, learned counsel for the

respondent/tenant sought time to seek instructions from his

client regarding the locality where the building is situated and

also regarding the probable rent which the building will fetch if

the same is let out today.

4. We are not inclined to grant time as we do not find any

reason for substantially interfering with the decision taken by the

Appellate Authority to set aside the ex parte order of eviction.

We are of the view, that the judgment of the Appellant

Authority can be sustained on modified conditions.

5. The result of the above discussions is, therefore, as

follows;

i). The judgment of the Appellate Authority impugned in

RCR .Nos.141 & 151/2010 3

these revision petitions will stand confirmed only if the

respondent pays to the revision petitioner either directly or

through his counsel in this court a further amount of Rs.2000/-

as costs(cost thus totaling to Rs.5,000/-) and files an affidavit

before the Rent Control Court within three weeks from today that

he shall, with effect from 15th September, 2010, pay rent to the

revision petitioner at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month.

ii). We make it clear that though we have refixed the rent

as above as a condition for sustaining the relief given to the

respondent, such refixation is tentative. This means that if either

party is aggrieved by the refixation of rent at Rs.2,000/-, it is

open to him to file regular application before the Rent Control

Court under Section 5 for fixation of fair rent.

iii). Once the Rent Control Court notices compliance with

the above conditions, that Court will post the Rent Control

Petition to the nearest available date for filing of objections by

the respondent and once objections are filed, that court will, after

completing the pre trial steps, ensure that the RCP is disposed

of early and at any rate within four months of the day the court

reopens after Onam Holidays. If there is no compliance with the

RCR .Nos.141 & 151/2010 4

conditions, the judgment of the appellate authority will stand set

aside and the order of the Rent Control Court, which was

impugned before the Appellate Authority,will stand restored.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk