IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 144 of 2010()
1. KARAKKANDATHIL BHARATHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.K.RUKHIYA, W/O.LATE MAMMU HAJI,
... Respondent
2. C.K.NAZEEMA, D/O.LATE MAMMU HAJI,
3. C.K.RAZIYA, D/O.LATE MAMMU HAJI,
4. C.K.NAZEER, S/O.LATE MAMMU HAJI,
5. C.K.SUBAIR, S/O.LATE MAMMU HAJI,
6. C.K.REHMANTH, D/O.LATE MAMMU HAJI,
7. C.K.ZEENATH, D/O.LATE MAMMU HAJI,
8. C.K.SAMEER, S/O.LATE MAMMU HAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :18/10/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------
RCR.Nos. 144 & 145 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in these revisions is a common judgment
of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction against
the revision petitioners tenants under sub section (3)of Section
11 reversing the order of the rent control court dismissing the
application finding that the need is bona fide and that the rent
control petitions are liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to
sub section(3) of Section 11.
2. In these revisions various grounds have been raised
assailing the judgment of the appellate authority. Sri. Grashious
Kuriakose, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, addressed
arguments on the basis of those grounds. All the arguments of
Grashious Kuriakose were stiffly opposed by Sri.V.R.K.Kamal,
learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed before
us, we feel that the question, whether the rent control petitions
R.C.R.Nos.144 & 145/2010 2
are liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub section (3) of
Section 11, needs to be reconsidered by the rent control
appellate authority. There is stiff controversy between the
parties as to whether the entire upstair portion of the larger
building, portions of which are the petition schedule buildings, is
remaining vacant.
4. Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to
interfere with the orders passed by the statutory authorities
and relegate the issue back to the appellate authority. But we
notice another aspect of the matter. The revision petitioners are
paying rent only at the rate of Rs.550/- per month for these
buildings. Having regard to the commercial importance of the
locality an important area of Chakkarakkal town near Kannur,
we feel that the rent, which is being paid presently, is below the
rent which the building may fetch if the same is let out today.
We are inclined to refix the rent tentatively at Rs.1,000/- per
month with effect from 1st December 2010.
5. The result of the above discussion is as follows;
i). The revision petitions are allowed.
ii) The judgment of the appellate authority and the order of
R.C.R.Nos.144 & 145/2010 3
the rent control court are set aside.
Iii). The RCAs are remanded to the appellate authority.
The appellate authority is directed to decide the question whether
the rent control petitions are liable to fail by virtue of the first
proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. The appellate authority
will permit both sides to adduce documentary evidence(including
commissioner’s reports) on the above question under the 1st
proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11.
iv). The finding that the need is bona fide is confirmed.
v). The appellate authority will complete further enquiry
and pass revised judgment at the earliest and at any rate within
three months of parties entering appearance before the appellate
authority pursuant to this order.
vi). The rent payable by each of the revision petitioners is
fixed tentatively with effect from 1st December 2010 at
Rs.1,000/- per month. This refixation is tentative and it is open
to either party if aggrieved, to approach the rent control court by
filing regular application under Section 5 (4) for fixation of fair
rent . Till such time fair rent is fixed, the revision petitioners
shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.
R.C.R.Nos.144 & 145/2010 4
The parties shall enter appearance before the appellate
authority on 20/12/2010.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
dpk