IMPORTANT POINTS:
The Rent Control Court has placed reliance on the prevailing rent at the time of determination of fair rent. If that be so, the instant case would squarely fall under the exception in Kadar Pillai K.S. v. M/s. Goven Travels, Ekm, 2014 (4) KHC 535.

K. Harilal, J.

1.The revision petitioner is the tenant, who is confronting with an order of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (herein after referred to as 'the Act'), in the appeal preferred by the respondents/landlords. (The parties are referred to as in the rent control petition).

2. According to the averments in RCP No.40/2015 of the Rent Control Court, Kottayam, earlier, the petitioners had filed R.C.P No.4/2013, before the Rent Control Court, Kottayam seeking an order fixing fair rent of the petition schedule building, and the Rent Control Court fixed the fair rent on 31.07.2014 @ Rs.4,450/- per month and also ordered that the same shall be enhanced by 10% every three years and the first of such enhancement will be in August 2017. So, the respondent was liable to pay the fair rent at the rate of Rs.4,450/- per month from the date of filing of RCP No.4/2013 ie; on 12.02.2013. But, the respondent committed default in payment of rent and an amount of Rs.70,978/- was outstanding from the respondent, as arrears of rent, as on July 2015. On 15.07.2015, the petitioners issued a registered notice to the respondent intimating default and demanding payment of arrears of rent @ Rs.4,450/- from 12.02.2013. On receipt of the said notice, the respondent paid Rs.12,277/- and Rs.4,450/- each on 31.08.2015, 12.09.2015 and 14.10.2015. So, the amount due as arrears on the date of petition is Rs.58,251/-. Since the respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent, as claimed by the petitioners, he is to be directed to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule room to the petitioner under Section 112(b) of the Act.

3. The respondent filed objection contending that the petition is not maintainable and no amount is due from him to the petitioners, as arrears of rent. The respondent further contended that, by order dated 31.07.2014 in RCP No.4/2013, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent of the petition schedule room at the rate of Rs.4,450/- per month from 31.07.2014; the date on which the Rent Control Court passed the judgment, fixing the fair rent. He was not liable to pay the fair rent from the date of institution of the rent control petition. So, no amount was due from him to the petitioners as arrears of rent.

4. Both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court found that the respondent is liable to pay enhanced fair rent @ Rs.4,450/- from 31.07.2014 and not from the date of filing of the rent control petition. So, no amount was due from the respondent to the petitioners as arrears of rent. On the aforesaid findings, the Rent Control Court dismissed the rent control petition.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred R.C.A No.9/2017, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam. The Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court and passed an order of eviction, under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, on a finding that the respondent was liable to pay rent @ Rs.4,450/- from 12.02.2013, the date of institution of the rent control petition. But, the respondent had paid rent from 31.07.2014, the date of order of the Rent Control Court only and thereby the respondent defaulted payment of fair rent, as fixed by the Rent Control Court in RCP No.4/2013. The legality and proprietary of the divergent findings, whereby the Rent Control Court dismissed the RCP and the Appellate Authority allowed the RCA, granting an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, are assailed in this revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners.

7. Smt. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant advanced arguments, assailing the findings of the Appellate Authority that the Rent Control Court in RCP No.4/2013 fixed the fair rent of the petition schedule shop room @ Rs.4,450/- fro