IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 RCRev..No. 234 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.58/2006 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE RCP.78/2003 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS : ----------------- 1. M.E.MUSTHAQ, S/O.LATE T.N.P.P.MOHAMMED HAJI, 39 YEARS, R/AT.FOUZIYA MANZIL KATTAPPALI AMSOM AND DESOM IN VATAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE. 2. M,E.JABAIR, S/O.LATE T.N.P.P. MOHAMMED HAJI, KATTAPPALI AMSOM AND DESOM IN VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 3. M.E.SULFEEKKAR, S/O.LATE T.N.P.P.MOHAMMED HAJI 35 YEARS, R/AT.FOUZIYA MANZIL, KOTTAPPALI AMSOM AND DESOM IN VATAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW SMT.K.MEERA RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------- 1. KARYAT KUNHAMMAD HAJI, 69 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, R/AT.AYANCHERI AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. KARYAT ABDULLA HAJI, AGED 36, SON OF KARYAT KUNHAMMAD HAJI, DO. DO. 3. KARAYAT ABDU REHMAN, AGED 34, DO. DO. 4. KARAYAT ABDUL SALAM, AGED 32, DO. DO. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, ALONG WITH RCR 235/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA NO.2115/08 IN RCR 234/2008 DISMISSED. 19/9/2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R. Nos.234 & 235 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. Two revision petitions are filed by the tenants, since there are tenants two buildings against which the Rent Control Court ordered eviction of both the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises is part and parcel of a large structure consisting of two rooms. One is used as a hotel and the other as a kitchen. The landlord sought eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(iii) of Act 2 of 1965. The revision petitioners herein, however, did not contest the matter by adducing any evidence. But the landlord adduced evidence and based on the evidence on record, the Rent Control Court ordered eviction on all the grounds. Against the said order of eviction, the revision petitioners filed appeals. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeals, against which the present revision petitions are filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioners for adducing evidence in the matter. As a matter of fact, the first issue that was raised for consideration RCR 234 & 235/2008 -2- before the Appellate Authority was as to whether there was any such denial of opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence. In that regard, the Appellate Authority found that the petitioners had in fact filed an application under Order XI Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was posted for evidence on different dates and ultimately it was dismissed for default. They did not prefer any appeal or revision therefrom. Thus, the default order became final. Therefore, when they filed an appeal against the ex-parte order of eviction, they can only raise the contentions based on the available evidence and not that they were denied an opportunity. The Appellate Authority also placed reliance on the decision of this court in Bava @ Asees v. Madhavan and others (1995 (2) KLJ 706) as also the decision of the Supreme Court in P.N. Abdul Azeez v. Shareefa Beevi (AIR 1996 (2) KLJ 630). Thereafter, the Appellate Authority considered each of the grounds on which the order of eviction is passed and after reappreciating the evidence, it came to the same conclusion as the one reached by the Rent Control Court. We do not find any reason to disagree with the said finding. The entire evidence on record has been reappreciated by the Appellate Authority once again. It was found that the order of eviction passed on each of the grounds is justified. The contention that they RCR 234 & 235/2008 -3- were denied an opportunity, is not open to be raised since the petition filed under Order XI Rule 13 has been dismissed for default, against which no proceedings were taken by the petitioners. In such circumstances, this contention also fails. In the result, we find no merit in the revision petitions. They are accordingly dismissed. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/