IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 RCRev..No. 329 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.48/2006 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,TRIVANDRUM RCP.45/2005 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: MOHAMMED H.NIZARUDEEN S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 39 YEARS RESIDING AT THALES, T.C.14/509 POTHUJANAM LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 011, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, A. UMARUDEEN. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: B.INDIRA DEVI , AGED 81 YEARS, W/O. LATE C.S. KOLAPPAN, RESIDING AT GEETHA, GANDHI AMMA COIL STREET, THAMPANOOR RMS PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023 BY ADVOCATE SRI. J.S. AJITH KUMAR. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONM ON 22.10.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C KURIAKOSE & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R.. NO. 329 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Tenant is in revision, challenging the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, rendered in R.C.A. 48 of 2006, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in R.C.P.45 of 2005. 2. It is conceded by both sides before us that the revision petitioner has vacated the petition schedule premises. Learned counsel Sri. G. S. Reghunath, appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that though it is true that the tenant has vacated the building, we may decide the correctness of the finding entered by the statutory authority regarding the rent kept in arrears. According to us, it is unnecessary to do so. The statutory authorities in these proceedings were concerned essentially with the question of evicting the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent. Now that the revision petitioner has vacated the building in obedience to the order of eviction passed against him, the question as to whether the finding entered by the statutory authority regarding the rent in arrears is correct or no longer germane to these proceedings. The Rent Control RCR 329/2010 2 Court is essentially a court for eviction. Proceedings under Section 11 is essentially for eviction and not for recovery of arrears of rent. In that view of the matter, we close this Rent Control Revision Petition. We make it clear that in the event of the respondent filing a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, the court which comes to be in seizin of that suit will not be unduly influenced by the finding, if any rendered by the learned Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court regarding the rent actually in arrears. The R.C.R. is closed. PIUS C KURIAKOSE, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-