AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.T. Sankaran, J.—The first respondent filed R.C.P. No. 76 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thalassery against the petitioner and the second respondent under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4) (v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It was alleged by the landlord that the monthly rent fixed for the building was Rs. 800/- and it was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1,000/-. It was also contended that the tenant was liable to pay the municipal tax. The Rent Control Court held that the rate of rent is only Rs. 800/-. It was also held by the Rent Control Court that the tenant is not liable to pay municipal tax. The case of the tenant that the rent was discharged was negatived by the Rent Control Court. It was held that the landlord is entitled to get an order of eviction under R.C.R. No. 386 of 2012
Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The order was passed by the Rent Control Court on 29.11.2007.
The tenants filed R.C.A. No. 50 of 2008 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery challenging the order of the Rent Control Court. The appeal was dismissed by the judgment dated 29.10.2010. The Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court. The tenant challenges the concurrent findings of the Court below in this Revision.
As stated earlier, the judgment of the Appellate Authority is dated 29.10.2010. This revision was filed only on 9.11.2012. It is stated in the affidavit filed along with the R.C.R., that the revision petitioner was bedridden due to rheumatic complaints and the second respondent (co-tenant) was also not in station to contact the Advocate and do the needful. The explanation for the delay is too vague. After the judgment was passed by the Appellate Authority, the tenant could have paid the arrears of rent and averted eviction. That was not done. Execution proceedings have been initiated by the landlord and at that juncture the tenant has filed this revision. The findings rendered by the Court below are findings of fact. It was found by the Appellate Authority that the rent in arrears was not paid by the tenants. The tenants are running a whole sale business in electrical goods. Still, they did not discharge the arrears of rent. We do not find any justification to admit the revision. The Rent Control Revision is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.