IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 112 of 2007()
1. CHAMBALAN RAGHAVAN, S/O.KANNA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. AERUMMAL BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.JANAKY,
... Respondent
2. P.V.SATHI, D/O.JANAKY,
3. P.V.INDIRA, D/O.JANAKY, AGED 55 YEARS,
4. AERUMMAL HARIKUMAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.NARAYANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :03/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
----------------------------------
R.C.R. No.112 of 2007
------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of January 2011
O R D E R
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is
the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Thalassery ordering eviction against the revision petitioner
on the ground of Sub section (3) of Section 11 in reversal of
a negative order passed by the learned Rent Control Court
dismissing the RCP. The need projected by the landlords,
who are five in number, is that the 5th respondent herein
one Mr.Harikumar wants to conduct a day care for his
livelihood in the petition schedule building. One of the
prominent contentions raised was that the landlords are
having in their possession other buildings and that there
are no special reasons as to why they should evict the
R.C.R. No.112 of 2007
-: 2 :-
revision petitioner from the petition schedule building.
They would also contend that atleast one room in the larger
building, of which the petition schedule building is another
room, was let out by the landlords recently, that is just prior
to filing of the RCP. It became evident that the landlords
had let out a vacant room forming part of the larger
building and another part of the petition schedule building
some time prior to the filing of the RCP. Thus, question
seriously arose as to when the above room was let out. The
landlords’ version was that the same was let out in 1998
more than one year prior to the filing of RCP. The tenant’s
version was that it was let out just one month prior to the
RCP. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence
dismissed the RCP taking a view that the need is not
bonafide. The Appellate Authority however, reversed the
decision of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction.
2. In this revision various grounds are raised by the
tenant assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority.
R.C.R. No.112 of 2007
-: 3 :-
Sri.K.V.Pavithran, the learned counsel for revision
petitioner addressed arguments on all those grounds
Sri.Mohanan and Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned counsel for
the landlords resisted all the submissions of Mr.Pavithran.
3. The question that arises for consideration is as to
when one of the rooms in the five room structure was let out
by the landlords, whether it was immediately prior to the
filing of the RCP or more than one year earlier to the filing
of the RCP. First proviso to Sub section (3) of Section 11
can operate only if the landlords are in possession of vacant
building belonging to the landlords at the time of
commencement of the RCP. But if it becomes evident that
landlords have let out an identical room belonging to them
just prior to filing of the RCP or at a time they were
harbouring the bonafide need in the RCP, then the same
can reflect on the question whether the need is bonafide.
4. After considering the submissions addressed at
the Bar we directed the respondents by order dated
R.C.R. No.112 of 2007
-: 4 :-
15.12.2010 to make available for our perusal the rent
kaychit executed by one Mr.Babu, the new tenant, in favour
of the landlords and posted the case on 21.12.2010. On
21.12.2010 the learned counsel sought further time to
produce the document. It was accordingly the case was
posted to this day. Today the learned counsel for the
landlords submitted that the landlord will not be in a
position to produce the kaychit and the kaychit was in the
custody of his mother who is no more. The learned counsel
also submitted that if time is given the landlord may be able
to produce some document which will prove that it was in
1998 that the building was let out to Mr.Babu. We are not
inclined to grant further time. We are inclined to remit the
matter back to Rent Control Court.
5. We notice another aspect of the matter that the
monthly rent payable by the revision petitioner for the
building in question situated within the area of Thalassery
Municipality at the rate of Rs.125/- is very low. The
R.C.R. No.112 of 2007
-: 5 :-
submission of the learned counsel for the landlord that for
an adjacent room the tenant is paying Rs.500/- per month
was not seriously disputed. We are therefore, inclined to
refix the rent tentatively at Rs.500/- per mensem with effect
from 1.2.2011. The result of the above discussion is as
follows :-
The judgment of the learned Appellate Authority
and order passed by the learned Rent Control Court are set
aside. RCP.200/99 is remanded to the Rent Control Court,
Thalassery. That court is directed to take fresh decision
regarding the order of eviction passed on the ground of Sub
section (3) of Section 11. The question as to when the room
was let out to Mr.Babu will be specifically enquired into.
Both sides are given opportunity to adduce further
evidence. Fresh decision will be taken on the basis of
evidence already on record and further evidence which may
be adduced by the parties.
The rent payable by the revision petitioner for the
R.C.R. No.112 of 2007
-: 6 :-
building is refixed tentatively with effect from 1.2.2011 at
the rate of Rs.500/- per mensem. We make it clear that the
above refixation is tentative. If either party is aggrieved, it
is open to them to move the learned Rent Control Court and
get the fair rent fixed under Section 5. Till fair rent is fixed
the revision petitioner shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.500/-
per mensem. The parties shall appear before the Rent
Control Court on 7.2.2011. That court is directed to
expedite matters and take fresh decision early and at any
rate within three months of appearance of parties.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Jvt