IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 RCRev..No. 179 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.100/2007 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.118/2006 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... : REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.O.ABRAHAM, S/O.LATE KURUVILA UNNITHAN, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, THURUTHICADU P.O., MALLAPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. BINU ZACHARIA, URUMIKUNNEL HOUSE, THURUTHICADU P.O., MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. T.O.ALIAS THOTTATHIL, RAMANCHIRA, MUTHOOT P.O. THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. BINOJ T.BABY, MARY SADANAM, THURUTHICADU PO., MALLAPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.179 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlords, who were unsuccessful before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, are the revision petitioners. They instituted the Rent Control Petition seeking eviction on various grounds including sub section (3) of Section 11. The tenants respondents contended that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the parties and hence the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable. They did not raise any specific contention of denial of landlords' title. Therefore, the Rent Control Court enquired into the question of maintainability of the RCP. Answering that question, it was found that the evidence fell short of holding that landlord tenant relationship exists between the parties. Hence the Rent Control Petition was dismissed. The decision of the Rent Control Court was approved by the Appellate Authority and the appeal was also dismissed. Even though several grounds have been raised in this memorandum of revision, Sri.Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, RCR No.179/2009 2 learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the impugned order and judgment will cause prejudice to the revision petitioners in that they foreclose the revision petitioners' remedy to approach the regular civil court for appropriate relief. We do not think so. We clarify that neither the order of the Rent Control Court nor the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court will not stand in the way of the revision petitioners approaching the appropriate Civil Court for appropriate reliefs by instituting appropriate proceedings. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk