IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 108 of 2006()
1. PAKKAYIL JAYACHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THURUTHIYIL NADUVILETH KALLIANI AMMA,
... Respondent
2. N.RAJAN, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,
3. N.SREEDHARAN, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAMBIAR
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.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Jvt
