Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.

Kerala High Court
Pakkayil Jayachandran vs Thuruthiyil Naduvileth Kalliani … on 17 December, 2010




RCRev..No. 108 of 2006()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent



                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

 Dated :17/12/2010

 O R D E R
                 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
                N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
                  R.C.R. No.108 of 2006
       Dated this the 17th day of December 2010

                          O R D E R

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

Even though the respondents are duly served with the

notice, they have not come forward to resist the prayers in

the RCR. The landlord in this revision under Section 20

challenges the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority

confirming the negative order passed by the Rent Control

Court dismissing the rent control petition which was filed

under Sub section (5) of Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The

landlord filed the petition under Section 11(5) seeking an

order of “eviction”. However, a careful reading of the Rent

Control Petition would show that it was only filed under

Section 11(5) of the Act and what could have been granted

to the revision petitioner by the Rent Control Court was

R.C.R. No.108 of 2006

-: 2 :-

only a permission to enter and carry out the renovation

within the time fixed by the court. In fact, it is clear on a

reading of rival pleadings that both sides understood the

RCP to be one filed under Section 11(5). The statutory

authorities also have enquired into the RCP as one under

Section 11(5). The finding concurrently entered by the

authorities is that the building requires repairs only and not

renovation. Considering the arguments advanced by

Mr.K.P.Balasubramanyan before us based on Ext.C1 report

and the contention raised by the tenant in the RCP that the

building requires extensive repairs. We find force in the

submission of Mr.Balasubramanyan that the building

requires atleast renovation. However, one reason why

relief was denied to the landlord is that the landlord did not

adduce any oral evidence to support his claim. The above

reason cannot be said to be unsound. Under these

circumstances we are of the view that it will suffice if the

petitioner is permitted to institute fresh proceedings against

R.C.R. No.108 of 2006

-: 3 :-

the respondent/tenant for appropriate reliefs including the

relief under Section 11(5).

We notice another aspect of the matter. The petition

schedule building is the first floor portion of a storeyed

building. The respondent/tenant is conducting a primary

school and there are atleast 4 class rooms and an office

room in this school. The monthly rent of Rs.7/- which is

being paid by the respondent was fixed in 1954. The

building situated is in Vadakara town, we therefore find that

the monthly rent being paid by the tenant is ridiculously

low. We refix the monthly rent payable by the respondent

with effect from 1.1.2011 at Rs.1000/- per mensem. We

make it clear that the above fixation of rent is tentative and

it will be open to both the parties to apply to the Rent

Control Court for regular fixation of fair rent. Till such

fixation the respondent shall pay monthly rent at the rate of

Rs.1000/- per mensem to the landlord. Therefore the RCR

is disposed of issuing the following directions:-

R.C.R. No.108 of 2006

-: 4 :-

The judgment of the Appellate Authority is

confirmed but petitioner is given liberty to initiate further

proceedings for appropriate reliefs including the relief

under Sub section (5) of Section 11. Rent payable by the

tenant is fixed with effect from 1.1.2011 at the rate of

Rs.1000/- per mensem. It is open to either party to apply to

the Rent Control Court for regular fixation of fair rent.

Until fair rent is fixed by the Rent Control Court, the tenant

shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.1000/- per mensem. The

petitioner is directed to send a copy of this judgment as and

when he obtains the same to the 2nd respondent by

registered post with acknowledgement due.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.108 seconds.