IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 422 of 2006()
1. PAIKKAT BASHEER, KARANNUR AMSOM DESOM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MEPPONTTIL RAMAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :18/01/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No. 422 OF 2006
------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Our order dated 14/1/2011 is suo motu recalled.
2. Sri.Sudhi Vasudevan, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner/landlord submitted that the statutory authorities
erred in not appreciating the commission report properly. The
learned counsel pointed out that even the wooden shutters of
the petition schedule building had collection of cobwebs on the
same. This, according to him, is a strong circumstance showing
that the building has not been opened at all. The learned
counsel argued that non examination of the landlord himself is
not fatal to the present case where the court is not called upon
to examine the bona fides of the claim. The landlord had taken
out a commission who found that the building was closed at the
time of inspection. Thus, the initial burden on the part of the
landlord to show that there was cessation of occupation was
clearly discharged . As 3against this, it was the tenant’s burden
RCR.No.422/2006 2
to adduce quality evidence and show that the building was
continuously being occupied by him. Mere presence of hay and
some earthen pots will not show that the building is under
occupation. The learned counsel referred to decisions in
support of his submissions. Mr.Sudhi Vasudavan highlighted that
the rent was in arrears continuously for several years and
according to him, this is yet another circumstance which shows
that there was cessation of occupation. The above circumstance
was also not given due weight by the learned authorities under
the statute.
3. Resisting the submissions of Mr.Sudhi Vasudavan,
Sri.P.A.Harish learned counsel for the tenant, would highlight
that though the landlord had invoked two grounds to evict the
tenant, the ground of arrears of rent was not one among them.
It is on the basis of a family partition deed that the present
landlord claims landlordship. The contention of the tenant was
that rent was being paid even earlier to the execution of the
alleged partition deed to the brother of the present landlord.
The landlord himself knew that rent was being paid to his
brother and this was why the landlord did not invoke Section 11
RCR.No.422/2006 3
(2)(b) as a ground for eviction. As regards the presence of
cobwebs on the wooden shutters, Mr.Harish submitted that in
the nature of the building and the business carried on therein, the
tenant was not in the habit of removing all the wooden
shutters and he removed only one or two shutters so as to
facilitate removal of goods therefrom. It is only natural that in
a premise where business is being conducted in hay and earthen
pots, there is collection of cobwebs. Mr.Harish would remind us
of the attenuated nature of the jurisdiction under Section 20 and
submit that this court will not be justified in upsetting the
finding of the statutory authorities which is a reasonable one
founded on evidence.
4. As directed by us, both sides addressed arguments as
to how much rent the building will fetch if the same is let out
today. Mr.Harish submits that the maximum rent the building
may fetch is Rs.150/- per month. Mr.Sudhi Vasudevan asserted
that the building will fetch not less than Rs.1,000/- per month.
5. Having anxiously considered the submissions addressed
at the Bar and having scanned the judgment of the Appellate
Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court and keeping in
RCR.No.422/2006 4
mind the para meters to be applied while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 20, it is clear to our mind that the judgment of
the Appellate Authority does not warrant interference in this
jurisdiction.
The Revision Petition will stand dismissed. However, we
re-fix the rent payable by the respondent/tenant with effect
from1/2/2011 at Rs.450/- per mensem. It is open to either party
to move the Rent Control Court by appropriate petitions under
Section 5 for fixation of fair rent. Till fair rent is fixed, the
respondent shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.450/- per mensem
with effect from 1/2/2011 to the revision petitioner/landlord.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk