THANKA ALIAS THANKAMMA Vs. SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OUR order dated 20/6/2011 is sought to be reviewed on the basis of Annexures 1 to 3 produced along with the memorandum of review. The revision petition was directed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that "struck off" the contention of the tenant in the case on the reason that the arrears of rent, as directed by the Appellate Authority, was not paid despite several postings given. While, we are hearing the revision petition, there was controversy at the Bar as to what exactly was the rent in arrears inclusive of the rent for the month of June 2011. According to the learned counsel for the landlord, it was Rs.2700/-. According to the learned counsel for the tenant revision petitioner, it was only 900/-. As the learned counsel for the tenant was unable to place before us any material to support her claim, we accepted the R.P.No.490/2011 2 version of the landlord and gave relief to the tenant imposing mainly two conditions. viz. (i) pay Rs.2,700/- the amount mentioned by the learned counsel for the landlord. (ii) pay Rs.2,300/- as costs.

(2.) SRI.Grashious Kuriakose, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexures produced along with the Review Petition will show that the allegation of the landlord at the time of hearing of the revision petition that Rs.2700/- was due is not correct. SRI.Thomas Antony, learned counsel for the landlord does not agree. He maintains that it is after giving credit to the amounts disclosed by the Annexures that he arrive at the figure of 2700/-.

(3.) WE also clarify that deposit of sum of Rs.2700/- before the Appellate Authority by the tenant in stead of directing payment will be sufficient compliance of the condition No.(ii) in our order dated 20/6/2011 in RCR No. 80/2011. Though Mr.Grashious Kuriakose very vehemently appealed for reduction of the cost amount of Rs.2300/- imposed by us under our order dated 20/6/2011, as it is apparent that the tenant was not all prompt in the matter of payment of rent, we do not find any reason for reducing the cost.