IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 924 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCR.181/2008 Dated 05/08/2008 RCA.101/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM RCP 155/2006 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ REVISION PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------- 1. WINNER THE OVEN FRESH, STAR BUILDINGS, OPP.SAVITHA THEATRE, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI-12. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP.BY ITS-MANAGING PARTNER- K.P.NAZAR. 2. K.P.NAZAR, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.WINNER THE OVERN FRESH, STAR BUILDINGS, OPP:SAVITHA THEATRE, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI-12. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ----------------------- E.V.SALEENA, W/O.B.H.MAMMI, BAVARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, A.K.G.VAYANASALA ROAD, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, THAMMANAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.LEO GEORGE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1932/2008 IN R.P.NO.924/2008 DISMISSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 25/08/2008 \\TRUE COPY// P.A to Judge P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R.P.No.924 of 2008 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 O R D E R P.R.RAMAN, J. The tenant is the review petitioner, who seeks to review the order passed in R.C.R.No.181/2008 by this Court. That was a revision filed against an order passed under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for default of payment of the admitted rent. The appellate authority also confirmed the order, against which revision was filed. 2. We had in our order dated 05/08/2008 in R.C.R.No.181/2008 found that, inspite of the fact that the tenant was given an opportunity to show cause for not proceeding under Section 12(3) of the Act, no cause was shown and he also absented from the court on 13/09/2007 when the case was taken up. Therefore, we found that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. R.P.No.924/2008 -:2:- 3. In the review for the first time, it is raised that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited at the time of taking the premises on rent, which amount has not been adjusted towards the admitted arrears of rent. He has also placed reliance on some decisions on this ground. Admittedly, this point was not raised at the time of revision before us nor was this raised before any of the authorities below. As such, the question now raised does not arise out of our order passed in the revision nor does it arise out of the order passed by the court below. In such circumstances, there cannot be any error apparent on the face of the record for a review. We, in the circumstances, dismiss the review petition. The question as to whether any amount was paid as aforesaid is a matter to be pleaded and to adduce evidence. In the absence of such plea raised, we cannot consider the plea in this revision for the first time. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms