Ponnambalath Asees vs Chennikkatt Moideenkoya

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed u/s 11(2)(b). Apparently attractive grounds have been raised and Sri. K.M. Firoz learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner addressed us in detail on the basis of all those grounds.

Having gone through the impugned judgment as well as the order of the Rent Control Court, we do not find any warrant for interference within the contours of our jurisdiction u/s 20. After all, eviction orders passed u/s 11(2)(b) are tentative orders, which are always liable to be got vacated by making requisite deposits. True, there is a dispute as to what is the contract rent. According to the tenant it is only Rs. 300/-, while according to the landlord it is Rs. 450/-. Two authorities on appreciating the evidence which came on record concluded that the landlord''s case is more probable. We are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the authorities below.

The revision will stand dismissed.

Mr. Firoz requested that reasonable time be given to the revision Petitioner to deposit the arrears, so that Section 11(2)(b) order can be got vacated. We are of the opinion that, on the totality of the facts and circumstances attending on this case, the revision Petitioner can be granted two months time from today. So, we grant to the revision Petitioner two months from today for making requisite deposit and for invoking Section 11(2)(c) of the Act.