IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 105 of 2009()
1. P.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARA IYER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R.M.RAJENDRAN, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY REDDIAR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KISHORE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :05/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No.105 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009
ORDER
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision petition under Section 20 of
the Act 2 of 1965 is a summary order of eviction passed by the
rent control appellate authority under sub section (3) of Section
12 of the Act. The appellate authority in June 2007 directed the
tenant revision petitioner to pay the entire arrears of rent
admitted by him. The stand taken by the revision petitioner was
that he has discharged the entire arrears of rent admitted by
him and that he seriously disputed his liability to pay the rent
allegedly payable for a period of 39 months commencing from
February 1997. The appellate authority, however, has passed the
impugned order on the reason that the admitted arrears of rent is
not paid and that no cause is shown against the passage of
summary order of eviction.
2. Having heard the submissions of Sri.D.Kishore, learned
RCR.No.105/2009 2
counsel for the revision petitioner and those of
Sri.J.S.Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the respondent landlord,
we are convinced that as on the date the impugned summary
order of eviction was passed by the appellate authority, the
revision petitioner tenant had discharged the arrears of rent
admitted by him. That being the position, we are of the view
that the impugned judgment of the appellate authority is vitiated
by legal and factual illegality and the same is liable to be
vacated invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the
Act.
3. Sri.J.S.Ajithkumar, learned counsel for the respondent
would submit that the subject building is under acquisition
proceedings for the purpose of road widening and an award has
been passed. According to him, the land acquisition authority is
unable to take over possession, on account of the resistance by
the revision petitioner tenant, who is not an interested party in
the land acquisition proceedings, though the landlord is willing
to surrender the acquired property on receiving compensation
from the Government. The submission of Sri.Ajithkumar
appears to be correct. But, in this proceedings we are concerned
RCR.No.105/2009 3
only with the legal correctness of the impugned judgment of the
rent control appellate authority. Hence, allowing the revision, we
set aside the judgment of the rent control appellate authority and
direct the appellate authority to dispose of the RCA in accordance
with law, at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of
receiving a copy of this judgment.
4. As for the complaint of Sri.Ajithkumar that the land
acquisition authority is unable to take possession due to
resistance of the revision petitioner, we will observe that this
judgment will not stand in the way of the land acquisition
authority enforcing recovery of possession by having recourse to
proceedings under Section 45 of the Land Acquisition Act.
5. It is noticed by us that as on the end of May 2009, rent
is admittedly in arrears to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, it
is directed that the present order setting aside the impugned
judgment will become operative only if the revision petitioner
pays to the respondent either directly or through his counsel in
this court the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) within three weeks from today. If payment as directed
RCR.No.105/2009 4
above is not made, this revision petition will stand dismissed.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk