IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 341 of 2010()
1. VASU,AGED 55 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHETTISSERU KHADER,AGED 65 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :02/11/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No. 341 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of
Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate
Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent
Control Court under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Act.
2. The tenant revision petitioner had raised dispute
regarding the contract rent payable. That dispute and also the
dispute as to what is the quantum of rent in arrears was
decided by the Rent Control Court after enquiry in which the
evidence adduced by the parties consisted of Ext.A1 to A6 and
testimonies of PW1 and RW1. It was accepting the case of the
landlord that the rent control court concluded that the rent was in
arrears as alleged and that the same was not paid in spite of the
statutory demand notice. Accordingly, the order of eviction was
passed.
RCR.No.341/2010 2
3. The appellate authority considering the appeal preferred
by the tenant would confirm the findings of the rent control
court and dismiss the appeal.
4. Even though various grounds have been raised and
Sri.V.C.Madhavankutty, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner has addressed arguments before us based on those
grounds, we are not persuaded to hold that there is any illegality,
irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of the appellate
authority. We are convinced that the findings concurrently
entered by the statutory authorities regarding the rate of rent
and also regarding the quantum of arrears due to the landlord is
correct and founded on evidence. In short, we do not find any
warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section
20.
1. 5. The revision petition fails and will stand dismissed
however, without any order as to cost. The learned counsel
for the revision petitioner requests for time to deposit the
amount, so that the order of eviction can be got vacated under
Section 11(2)(c). Hence, even as we dismiss the RCR, we
grant the revision petitioner one month’s time from today for
RCR.No.341/2010 3
making requisite deposit for getting order of eviction vacated
under Section 11(2)(c) by filing necessary application.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
dpk