KASU R Vs. K ABDUL RAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as revised by the order in IA No. 1931/2010 which was an application for review of the earlier judgment by which the appeal preferred by the landlord was dismissed. The only ground which survives for consideration is the ground of arrears of rent. The landlord invoked the above ground alleging that the rent payable by the revision petitioner for the building which consists of three rooms is Rs.750/- per mensem and that rent at that rate has been defaulted since 01/11/2000. The defence of the revision petitioner was that the rent is Rs.300/- per mensem only and that the same was regularly paid, though the landlord has not issued any receipt, Ext. A1 was the statutory intimation notice which was issued by the respondent to the petitioner in terms of the proviso to S.11(2)(b). In Ext. A1 rent arrears had been demanded at the rate of Rs.750/-per mensem and the Rent Control Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the tenant's version regarding rate of rent is more probable and accordingly held that the rate of rent is Rs.300/- per mensem. Taking the view that Ext. A1 which demands rent at the rate of Rs.750/- per mensem cannot be a valid notice, the rent control petition was dismissed. Appellate Authority in the flirt instance confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the rent control petition. However, the review petition was allowed and now the order of eviction is passed under S.11(2)(b). The view taken by the learned Appellate Authority in the order in the review petition is that a mistake in the rate of rent demanded in the statutory notice will not invalidate the notice. That mistake can be ignored while quantifying the arrears for the purpose of passing the order under S.11(2)(b) and for invoking the remedy under S.11(2)(c).

(2.) Even though various grounds have been raised challenging the order in the review petition and the view taken by the learned Appellate Authority and Sri. K. P. Balagopal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner addressed persuasive submissions before us based on those grounds, we are not persuaded to hold that the impugned order warrants interference within the attenuated revisional jurisdiction under S.20 of the Act. As rightly noticed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority the worst that can be said about Ext. A1 statutory intimation notice is that the contract rent and the quantum of rent in arrears have been wrongly stated by the landlord therein. But the same certainly gives intimation to the tenant regarding the tenant's default in the matter of payment of the contract rent. At the time of issuance of Ext. A1, there was controversy between the parties as to what was the contract rent. That controversy is now finally settled and it is said that contract rent is Rs.300/- per mensem. It cannot be disputed in the teeth of the findings entered concurrently by the two authorities that the rent even at the rate of Rs.300/- per mensem had not been paid by the revision petitioner, it is conceded by the revision petitioner that he was unsuccessful in proving that he had paid the rent at the rate admitted by him. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety about the findings of the learned Appellate Authority that Ext. A1 notwithstanding the incorrect statement contained therein regarding the rate of rent and the quantum in arrears is valid for the purpose of the proviso to S.11(2)(b). The revision fails and stands dismissed.

(3.) However, considering the totality of the circumstance which attend on this case, we grant to the revision petitioner two months time from today for invoking the provisions of S.11(2)(c) so that eviction order presently passed under S.11(2)(b) can be got vacated. Mr. Suresh Menon, learned counsel for the respondent / landlord submitted that the rate of Rs.300/- per mensem is very low considering the commercial potentiality of the building. He requested that we refix the rent at least tentatively. We are not inclined to do so as this revision is filed by the tenant. The revision will stand dismissed. We will only observe that it is open to both sides to move the Rent Control Court under S.5 for regular fixation of fair rent.