IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No. 203 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.3/2003 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.8/2000 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------- 1. NASSAR, S/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHAMBIAN BAKERY, MELE MOOTHEDATH, VELIMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SULAIKHA, W/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHAMBIAN BAKERY, MELE MOOTHEDATH, VELIMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MUSTHAFA, S/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHAMBIAN BAKERY, MELE MOOTHEDATH, VELIMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. KHADEEJA, D/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHAMBIAN BAKERY, MELE MOOTHEDATH, VELIMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. SAOFINNEESA, D/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHAMBIAN BAKERY, MELE MOOTHEDATH, VELIMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. NOUSHAD, S/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHAMBIAN BAKERY, MELE MOOTHEDATH, VELIMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. RCR.NO.203/06 7. SOUDABI, D/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHAMBIAN BAKERY, MELE MOOTHEDATH, VELIMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. FAIZAL, S/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHAMBIAN BAKERY, MELE MOOTHEDATH, VELIMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. NASRATH, D/O. LATE ABDUL KHADER, CHAMBIAN BAKERY, MELE MOOTHEDATH, VELIMUKKU AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS ------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED NASSAR, S/O. KOPPATH PARAMEL HAMZA HAJI, RESIDING AT MELE PATTAMBI, NETHIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. MUHAMMEDALI, S/O. KOPPATH PARAMEL HAMZA HAJI, DO. DO. 3. AFSAL, S/O. KOPPATH PARAMMEL HAMZA HAJI, DO. DO. 4. SUBAIDA, D/O. KOPPATH PARAMMEL HAMZA HAJI, REP. BY MUKTHIAR AGENT HAMSA HAJI, S/O. KUNHAHAMMED MESTRI, DO. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 TO R4 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R1 TO R4 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.203 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 of the Rent Control Act is an order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. One of the reasons on which the Rent Control Court dismissed the application for eviction was that the needy person , the son of the landlord was not examined. But his father , power of attorney holder was examined. The Appellate Authority referred to the proceedings and endorsed the view of the Rent Control Court. But the Appellate Authority thought that an opportunity should be given to the landlord for examining the really needy person. It is to grant such opportunity that the impugned order of remand has been passed. 2. Sri.R.Ramdas, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the judgment of the Rent Control Court dismissing R.C.P.No.7/2000 filed by the landlord in respect of another room in the larger building a part of which only is the petition schedule building. RCR.No.203/06 2 According to Sri.Ramdas, dismissal of that R.C.P. should lead to the inevitable dismissal of the present R.C.P. also. 3. Sri.Jayesh Mohankumar, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent decided not to prosecute that R.C.P. in view of the pendency of the present R.C.R. as well as R.C.P.No.8/2003. He submitted that a fresh R.C.R. is being filed in respect of building which is subject matter of R.C.P.No.7/2000 now dismissed. We do not propose to decide on the implications of the dismissal of R.C.P.No.7/2000. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section on the judgment of the Appellate Authority. After all, it is only an order of remand which does not decide the issue finally. R.C.R.is dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.203/06 2