IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (RC).No. 459 of 2011(O)
1. RAHULRAJ, AGED 22 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. K.P.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
Vs
1. THANIKKAL SUNDARAN, AGED 61 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
Dated :02/02/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
----------------------------------
O.P.(R.C) No.459 of 2011
----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2011
J U D G M E N T
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
Challenge in this OP filed under Article 227 by the
tenant is against Ext.P4 order. Under Ext.P4 the learned
Rent Control Appellate Authority has granted stay of
execution of the eviction order on condition that the entire
arrears of rent found by the Rent Control Court is deposited
within four weeks and the petitioners/appellants continue to
deposit the rent which falls due subsequently.
2. Sri.V.G.Arun, the learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that the condition imposed under
Ext.P4 is not warranted in the present case where the
petitioners have denied the title of the respondent/landlord
and the correctness of the finding of the court below to the
O.P.(R.C) No.459 of 2011
-: 2 :-
effect that the denial is not bonafide itself is under
challenge. According to him, by insisting that the arrears of
rent as found by the court below should be deposited, the
learned Appellate Authority has virtually confirmed the
finding of the Rent Control Court.
3. According to us, the above submission has only
superficial attractiveness what the learned Appellate
Authority has done is to impose a condition for favourably
exercising its discretion in the matter of granting stay of
execution proceedings. We do not find any case is made out
by the petitioner for invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of
this Court Article 227 for interfering with Ext.P4.
We decline jurisdiction and dismiss the OP.
However, we make it clear that deposit of the arrears of
rent pursuant to Ext.P4 by the petitioner will be without
prejudice to all the contentions raised by the petitioners in
the case including the contention that there is no landlord-
tenant relationship between them and the respondent. We
O.P.(R.C) No.459 of 2011
-: 3 :-
also direct the learned Appellate Authority to permit the
landlord to withdraw the amount to be deposited pursuant
to Ext.P4 only subject to the result of the RCA.
Since time fixed by the Appellate Authority has
already expired, we extend the time for depositing the
arrears of rent by 10 days from today.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Jvt