IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 36 of 2009(E)
1. ABDUL ASEES, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEVAKI,W/O.NARAYANAN,PADAMBATH,BALUSSERY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAMADAS
For Respondent :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :08/04/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
RCR. No. 36 & 86 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
RCR. 36/09 is filed by the landlord and RCR. 86/09 is
filed by the tenant. Both the revision petitions are directed
against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority, Kalpetta. Since facts have been narrated
correctly in the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority and also in the order of the Rent Control Court we
propose to refer to them only very briefly. The parties are
being referred to as landlord and tenant respectively.
2. The rent control petition was filed by the landlord
seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground under
subsection (3) of section 11 of Act 2 of 1965, viz., the
ground that the petition schedule building is required bona
fide by the landlord for starting a hardware business for his
dependent daughter Rahiya and son-in-law Muhammed.
The landlord alleged that the tenant has got properties and
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-2-
buildings at Balussery, her home town and that she is
having income from them. It was alleged that the tenant is
having buildings having door Nos.226 to 230 and 551 to 555
in Ward No. VII of Meenangadi Panchayath in addition to
two other buildings standing in her name. The landlord
alleged therefore, that if the tenant wants to shift her textile
business she has her own building to shift to, and that the
tenant is not entitled protection for the second proviso to
subsection (3) of section 11 of Act 2 of 1965.
3. The tenant contended that the need put forward by
the landlord is only a ruse for getting eviction and that the
landlord’s son-in-law is working in Gulf a country for many
years and that he has landed properties and business
establishments at Koduvally his native town, and has no
need for starting hardware business in the petition schedule
building. It was alleged that the rent control petition was
filed without bonafides in retaliation to the tenant not
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-3-
acceding to the landlord’s request for enhancement of rent.
The tenant denied the allegation regarding the availability of
buildings with her and contended that the buildings made
mention of by the landlord are in the possession of tenants
and that on the basis of an oral partition, those buildings
have been set apart to the share of the tenant’s daughter.
4. The evidence at enquiry by the Rent Control Court
consisted of the oral testimony of the landlord as PW-1 and
the testimony of Sri.Sreenivasan, son of the tenant as RW-
1. Documentary evidence on the side of the landlord
consisted of Exts.A1 to A6. The tenant’s son Sreenivasan
was permitted to defend the RCP and to adduce evidence on
behalf of his mother Devaky, the tenant. The Rent Control
Court on an evaluation of the evidence found that the need
put forward by the landlord is bona fide and hence ordered
eviction under subsection (3) of section 11. The Appellate
Authority on re-appreciating the evidence concluded that
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-4-
the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the
bonafides of the need was correct. However, on the reason
that the landlord had prosecuted the rent control petition
without appointing a guardian for the tenant who is mentally
incapable of defending herself, it was found that the order
passed by the Rent Control Court in favour of the landlord
was hit by Rules 2 and 15 of Order 32 C.P.C. Accordingly
the order was set aside and the RCP was remitted back to
the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal in accordance with
law. In RCR. 36 of 2009 the landlord challenges the order
of the Rent Control Appellate Authority to the extent the
eviction order is set aside and matter remanded to the Rent
Control Court and in RCR. 86 of 2009 the tenant challenges
the correctness of the findings of the Rent Control Court and
the Appellate Authority regarding the genuineness of the
need projected by the landlord.
5. We have heard the submissions of Sri.T.Krishnan
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-5-
Unni, learned senior counsel for the landlord and also those
of Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel for the
tenant. Mr.Krishnan Unni would submit that the finding of
the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority
concurrently entered by them that the need projected by
the landlord under subsection (3) of section 11 is a bona
fide one is based on acceptable legal evidence and hence
unassailable. Mr.Krishnan Unni submitted that Rules 2 and
15 of Order 32 C.P.C. are not at all applicable to
proceedings before the Rent Control Court and in this
context he drew our attention to section 23 of Act 2 of 1965.
According to him only a few provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure have been made applicable. The learned senior
counsel submitted that as far as rent control proceedings
are concerned it is subrule (8) of Rule 11 of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules which governs and
that the authorities are expected to follow the principles of
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-6-
equity, justice and good conscience and not the strict
procedural rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr.Krishnan
Unni submitted that the tenant’s only son Sreenivasan had
filed I.A.926/05 before the Rent Control Court seeking
appointment of himself as next friend on the reason that his
mother Devaky was no longer capable of taking care of
herself and it is considering that IA, that Sreenivasan, DW-1
was permitted to defend the RCP and to adduce evidence
for and on behalf of his mother. Mr.Krishnan Unni
submitted that Sreenivasan pursued the defence which his
mother Devaky had taken in the RCP, adduced evidence in
the RCP and himself filed appeal before the Rent Control
Appellate Authority in his capacity as the next friend and
son of Devaky. The finding of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority that the matter was prosecuted without appointing
a guardian for the tenant who was alleged to be incapable of
defending her case is without any basis. In the view of the
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-7-
Rent Control Appellate Authority that conduct by
Sreenivasan of his mother’s case without getting himself
appointed as next friend after an enquiry under rule 15 of
Order 32 CPC, the appeal which was filed by Sreenivasan
claiming himself to be the next friend of his mother should
have been rejected. Instead the appeal was entertained
and has now been allowed. The decision of the Appellate
Authority is most inequitable, so submitted the learned
senior counsel.
6. The submissions of Mr.Krishnan Unni were resisted
as forcefully as he could, by Sri.S,.V.Balakrishna Iyer,
learned senior counsel for the tenant. Drawing our attention
to the order dated 19-10-2005 passed by the Rent Control
Court in IA.926/05 Mr.Balakrishna Iyer submitted that
though the provisions of rules 2 and 15 of Order 32 were
invoked in that I.A. the Rent Control Court has cautiously
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-8-
allowed the IA only to the extent of permitting Mr.
Sreenivasan to conduct the case and adduce evidence for
and on behalf of his mother Devaky. The I.A. was never
allowed as prayed for. Mr. Balakrishna Iyer would fortify
his submissions by a catena of decisions. The learned senior
counsel would cite the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Gopalan v. Aboobacker (1995 (2) KLT 205) to argue that the
authorities under the Rent Control Act, the Appellate
Authorities as well as the Rent Control Courts are not
persona designata but they are regular Courts which have
been conferred with the power of adjudicating upon the
disputes between the landlords and tenants. The learned
senior counsel submitted that though the Supreme Court
decision in Gopalan’s case was in the context of the powers
of the Rent Control Appellate Authority to condone delay
under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, the principles
laid down in that judgment will abundantly show that the
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-9-
Appellate Authorities under the Act are for all practical
purposes regular civil courts governed by all the provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure. Answering the contention of
Mr.Krishnan Unni that order 32 rule 15 has not been
mentioned under section 23 Mr.Balakrishna Iyer would
submit on the authority of the judgment of a Division Bench
of this Court in Jullunder C. & N.Mfg. Co. v. Jayadevan,
(1999 (1) KLT 107) that no provision of the Rent Control Act
runs in conflict with rule 15 of Order 32 CPC and the said
rule being a procedural provision, its principles can be
applied to rent control proceedings also. Mr.Balakrishna Iyer
placed strong reliance on the judgment of Sri.K.Sreedharan,
J. in Abdul Rehiman v. Hameed Hassan Peruvad & others,
(1995(2) KLT 794) wherein the learned Judge relying on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopalan v. Aboobacker,
(1995(2) KLT 205) held that the Rent Control Court is not
acting as persona designata but is acting as a regular court.
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-10-
Mr.Balakrishna Iyer submitted that the enquiry which is
contemplated by rule 15 of Order 32 CPC into the alleged
mental infirmity of a party to the suit was a judicial enquiry
with notice to the allegedly insane person and any order
passed against an allegedly insane person without such an
enquiry will vitiate the order to the extent of making the
same a nullity. The learned counsel relied on the judgment
of this court in Balakrishnan v. Kalliyani, (AIR 1957 Kerala
51) in this context. For the same proposition the learned
senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Rami Reddi v. Papi Reddi, (AIR 1963 A.P.
160). Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra v.Man
Singh, AIR 1968 SC 954) in support of the argument that
decree passed against a lunatic without the appointment of
a guardian for him as per procedure contemplated under
rules 3 and 15 of Order 32 is a nullity. To argue that an
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-11-
enquiry as contemplated by rule 15 of Ordr 32 is mandatory
and that such an enquiry can be held even at the appellate
stage Sri.Balakrishna Iyer relied on the judgment of the
Madras High Court in S.Chattanatha Karayalar v.
Vaikuntarama, (AIR 1968 Madras 346). Mr.Balakrishna Iyer
submitted that once the court is informed or it comes to the
notice of the court that a party before the court is by reason
of unsoundness of mind or otherwise incapable of taking
care of his interest, it is the court’s duty to hold necessary
enquiry and appoint guardian or next friend as the case may
be. Mr. Balakrishna Iyer relied also on the judgment of a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Somnath v.
Tipanna, (AIR 1973 Bombay 276). The learned senior
counsel relied on the judgment of Kochu Thommen, J. in
Neroth Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax (1987 (2)
KLT 243), of Pareed Pillai, J. in Maideen Bava Rawther v.
John Xavier, (1990(2) KLT 953) also for the same
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-12-
proposition. Strong reliance was placed by the learned
senior counsel on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court
in Pankajaksha Kurup v. Fathima, (1998(1) KLT 668 (F.B)
wherein their Lordships of the Full Bench have held that if a
decree is passed against a minor without appointing a
guardian, the decree is a nullity and hence void and not
merely voidable. The learned senior counsel would lastly
rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Bai
and others v. Anguri Chaudhary, (AIR 2003 SC 1773) to
argue that before entering a finding as to whether a party
was incapable of protecting his interest by reason of his
mental infirmity, an enquiry had to be conducted by the trial
court itself.
7. Mr.Balakrishna Iyer would assail the finding of the
Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority regarding
the bonafides of the need projected by the landlord under
subsection (3) of section 11. But according to us, the
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-13-
argument of the learned senior counsel in challenge of those
findings concurrently entered by the courts below were not
very forceful in view of the well defined contours of this
court’s powers under section 20 to re-appreciate the
evidence and substitute factual findings concurrently
entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate
Authority on the basis of evidence recorded in the case.
8. We have very anxiously considered the rival
submissions addressed before us by the learned senior
counsel for the landlord and the tenant respectively. It is by
now trite that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate
Authority adjudicating disputes between landlords and
tenants function not as persona designata and are
discharging for all practical purposes judicial functions which
are to be discharged by them in other adjudicatory
jurisdictions including the regular civil jurisdiction.
Nevertheless it cannot be gainsaid that the Rent Control
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-14-
Court and the Appellate Authority are statutory courts to be
governed primarily by the provisions of the statute which
creates them. It was fairly conceded by Mr.Balakrishna Iyer
that he was unable to come across any decision either of
the Supreme Court or of this Court or for that matter of any
other High Court wherein it is held that all the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings
before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.
Section 23 of Act 2 of 1965 is the one provision which
extends certain provisions vested in Courts governed by
Code of Civil Procedure while trying suits to the Rent Control
Court and the Appellate Authority. Order 32 CPC is
conspicuously absent among the powers enumerated in
clauses (a) to (k) of subsection (1) of section 23. A learned
Judge of this Court, Sri.M.P.Menon, J. in Cheru Ouseph v.
Kunjipathumma, (1981 KLT 495) held that in respect of
procedural matters all powers which are not specifically
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-15-
denied by the statute or the statutory rules should be
vouchsafed to a Tribunal like the Rent Control Court so that
the Tribunal can effectively exercise its functions which are
essentially judicial in nature. The statutory rules are the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1979
framed by the Government by virtue of its powers under
section 31 of the Act. In the statutory rules also, we do not
find any specific provision pertaining to filing of rent control
petitions by or against minors and persons of unsound mind.
It can never be in doubt that it may become necessary to
institute rent control petitions against minors and also
against persons who are of unsound mind at the time of
such institution or comes to be of unsound mind during the
course of the proceedings. What is the course to be
adopted when a rent control petition is instituted by or
against a person who is alleged to be a minor or of unsound
mind is the question which naturally arises. Minors and
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-16-
persons of unsound mind being persons under legal
disability cannot institute rent control petitions by
themselves nor can rent control petitions be instituted
against them in their own names. According to us, in such
situations the provisions of Order 32 to the extent they do
not conflict with any of the provisions in Act 2 of 1965 or the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules can be
followed. At the same time, the Rent Control Court and the
Appellate Authority should not be unmindful of subrule (8)
of rule 11 which specifically enjoins on them the obligation
to follow the principles of justice, equity and good
conscience in preference to the technicalities of procedural
law.
9. It is common ground that the tenant Smt.Devaky
was a person of sound mind at the time she was served with
notice of the RCP and when she filed the statement of
objections in the RCP. On going through the statement
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-17-
objections filed by Smt.Devaky we notice that all
conceivable contentions have been raised by her. The
situation of Smt.Devaky coming to lose the soundness of
her mind is a development subsequent to the institution of
the RCP. Mr. Sreenivasan who has filed RCR. 86/09 is the
only son of Smt.Devaky. Mr. Sreenivasan is admittedly the
one person who has all along been doing business on behalf
of his aged mother, in the petition schedule building. Mr.
Sreenivasan informed the Rent Control Court through the
affidavit which he filed in support of I.A.926/05 that his
mother is no longer a sound person and that she is being
treated by a Psychiatrist. This affidavit was attested by
none other than the advocate who was thitherto appearing
on behalf of Smt.Devaky. Smt.Devaky herself figured as
the petitioner in the IA which was filed by the very same
advocate. It was the power under rule 15 of Order 32
C.P.C. which was specifically invoked in the IA. The prayer
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-18-
in the IA was that Sreenivasan, the son of the tenant be
permitted to pursue the tenant’s defence in the RCP as her
guardian. Along with the IA medical certificates issued by
the Psychiatrist who was treating Smt.Devaky was also
produced. The submission of the learned counsel for the
landlord is that when an affidavit was filed by the only son
of the tenant stating that his mother is no longer a sound
person and when it was seen that the affidavit was
supported by medical certificate issued by a Psychiatrist who
has good reputation in the locality, the landlord did not feel
like filing any counter. This is the order which was passed
by the Rent Control Court on the above IA.
“This petition coming on this day for hearing before
me in the presence of Sri.Rajesh K., advocate for the
petitioner and Sri.P. Chathukutty, advocate for
respondent/petitioner and on the same day the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Heard. Allowed. Petitioner Sreenivasan is permitted
to conduct the case, adduce evidence for and onRCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-19-behalf of his mother Devaky. Hence IA closed.”
10. It is true that the above order does not in so
many words appoint Sreenivasan as the guardian of his
mother. But the order allows the application and we are
inclined to accept the submission of Mr.Krishnan Unni that
the above order virtually appointed Sreenivasan as the
guardian at litem for his mother on his application. What
is more important is that it was on the strength of the above
order that Sreenivasan was permitted to adduce evidence in
the case. Though for the filing of the IA Sreenivasan had
taken the services of his own advocate one Mr.Rajesh, once
the IA was allowed Sri.P.C.Gopinath, Advocate who had
entered appearance for his mother himself was permitted by
Mr. Sreenivasan to pursue the contest. Importantly, even
after the IA was filed the very same contentions which were
raised by the tenant who had personally engaged
Sri.P.C.Gopinath as her counsel to defend the RCP were
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-20-
allowed to be pursued through Mr.P.C.Gopinath himself. It is
seen that Mr.Gopinath cross-examined the landlord PW-1
and he only argued the case on behalf of the tenant. In
other words, at all material times Sri.P.C.Gopinath remained
the counsel of the tenant Smt.Devaky before the Rent
Control Court. We are highlighting this only because, on a
survey of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Rules it appears to us that a party’s counsel before the Rent
Control Court is given a slightly more important role than
that of the counsel for a party in a regular suit. We notice
that while the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Rules of
Practice insist on the pleadings being signed and verified by
the party, in terms of rule 7 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Rules it will suffice if rent control petition
is signed either by the petitioner or by his counsel. What
has happened in this case is that Mr. Sreenivasan, the only
son of the tenant reported to the Rent Control Court before
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-21-
it started the enquiry in the case that his mother, the tenant
was no longer capable of taking care of her interest in the
subject matter of the RCP in view of unsoundness of mind.
His report was accepted by the Rent Control Court and Mr.
Sreenivasan took advantage of the order passed by the
court in the application filed by him seeking his own
appointment as his mother’s guardian. It was by virtue of
that order itself that Mr. Sreenivasan could file the appeal.
But for that order, the appeal filed by Sreenivasan was liable
to be thrown out as appeal filed by an unauthorised person.
The question before us is whether we should approve the
decision of the Appellate Authority to set aside the order of
the Rent Control Court on the only ground that the tenant
was not represented by a lawfully constituted guardian
despite unsoundness of mind. It is clear to our mind that it
will be against all tenets of equity, justice and good
conscience to grant approval to the decision taken by the
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-22-
Rent Control Appellate Authority in the facts and
circumstances which obtain in this case.
11. While addressing the specific question as to
whether it is necessary to follow the procedure envisaged by
Order 32 in rent control petitions which are filed by or
against minors or persons of unsound mind our answer is
that substantially the same procedure should be adopted,
though not in strict terms of the rules in Order 32. This
means that when rent control petitions are filed by or
against minors or persons of unsound mind a next
friend/guardian will have to be permitted/appointed for the
minor or person of unsound mind as the case may be. It will
have to be ensured that the person permitted to function
as next friend or appointed as guardian is qualified to be so
permitted/appointed. In the case of persons of unsound
mind, enquiry akin to the one contemplated by rule 15 of
Order 32 should also be conducted by the Rent Control
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-23-
Court or the Appellate Authority as the case may be. It is
settled by a line of decisions that ordinarily any enquiry
under Rule 15 of Order 32 can be conducted only with notice
to the allegedly unsound person. His presence in the court
should be procured by the court which shall conduct a voir
dire so as to become convinced prima facie regarding the
correctness or otherwise of the allegation regarding the
soundness of his mind. Lastly if it comes to that, the court
can refer him to a doctor or a team of doctors. It would
appear as if no such enquiry comparable to the one which is
contemplated by rule 15 of Order 32 has been conducted in
this case and hence the order of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority is only to be sustained. We however, are not
inclined to sustain the order of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority in view of the following reasons:
1. Though in IA. No.926/05 it was rule 5 of Order 32
which was specifically invoked by Mr. Sreenivasan, the son
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-24-
of the tenant it is clear to us that the Rent Control Court
allowed that application by invoking its inherent powers as a
judicial tribunal cast with a duty to adjudicate the disputes
between landlords and tenants.
2. Though the Rent Control Court did not insist on the
attendance of the allegedly unsound person, the tenant, or
conduct a voir dire by putting questions to that person to be
satisfied prima facie regarding the soundness of the mind of
the person that court had medical certificate produced by
Sreenivasan, the son of the tenant strongly supporting the
allegation in the affidavit that his mother due to
unsoundness of mind is no longer capable of taking care of
her interest. It was considering that medical certificate also
that the court became inclined to allow the application.
3. Regarding the correctness of the averments in the
affidavit submitted by Sreenivasan in support of IA.
No.926/05 there was complete agreement between the
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-25-
parties before the Rent Control Court. To a specific query
put by us, Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel
for the tenant would submit that even if we were to order
attendance of the allegedly insane person the tenant and
conduct a voir dire we will be convinced that Smt.Devaky,
the tenant even now continues to be a person of unsound
mind.
4. It is common ground that Smt.Devaky, the tenant
and Sreenivasan, her son have no conflicting interest in the
subject matter of the rent control proceedings, the building.
In fact the admissions and the evidence will reveal that the
business is being carried on by Sreenivasan himself in the
building on behalf of the tenant by Sreenivasan himself and
that it is the personal interest of Sreenivasan also, that
adverse order against the tenant in the RCP is averted.
5. The evidence will reveal that Sreenivasan did not
leave any stone unturned in substantiating the contentions
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-26-
which had been raised by his mother in the RCP and that he
decided to have the case conducted by the very same
advocate who had been engaged by his own mother.
6. The rent control appeal was preferred against the
eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court by
Sreenivasan styling himself as the next friend of his mother
on the strength of the order passed by the Rent Control
Court in I.A. 926/05. Even RCR No. 86/09 is filed before
this Court by Mr. Sreenivasan in the same capacity. Though
not in so many words, the Rent Control Court by allowing
the IA filed by Mr. Sreenivasan has appointed Mr.
Sreenivasan as the guardian at litem for his insane mother.
7. No prejudice whatsoever has been occasioned to
the tenant Devaky or her son Sreenivasan by the non-
conduct of a full-fledged enquiry under rule 15 of Order 32
CPC by the Rent Control Court. In the instant case the
unsoundness of Smt.Devaky’s mind is conceded by all
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-27-
parties and established by the medical evidence put in by
Sreenivasan, Devaky’s only son and de-facto guardian. At
any rate it is inequitable to set aside the order of eviction
passed in favour of the landlord accepting a contention by
Mr. Sreenivasan who is beneficiary of the order passed by
the Rent Control Court in IA. No. 926/05.
12. The result of the above discussions is that RCR. No.
86 of 2009 stands dismissed. RCR. No. 36 of 2009 will
stand allowed. The judgment of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority to the extent it vacates the order of eviction
passed by the Rent Control Court is set aside. The order of
the Rent Control Court passed under subsection (3) of
section 11 is restored. Respondent is given time till 15-11-
2009 to vacate the premises subject to the following
conditions.
Sri.Sreenivasan S/o Devaky, who is the next friend of
the respondent Devaky shall file an affidavit stating that he
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-28-
shall vacate the RCP schedule building peacefully and put
the revision petitioner in possession of the same on or
before 15-11-2009 and that he will discharge arrears of rent
if any, and will continue to pay rent which falls due
subsequently in respect of the building. Affidavit as directed
shall be filed on or before 30th May, 2009. If such an
affidavit is filed the building in question will not be delivered
over to the revision petitioner before 16-11-2009.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
(C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE)
ksv/