IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12938 of 2008(M) -------------------------- (RCA.43/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR (RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR) (RCP.122/2003 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR,(RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR) .................... PETITIONER: ------------ MRS.CICY THARU, AGED 53, W/O.LATE THARU, NOW RESIDING AT MANGALATH HOUSE, MAZHUVANOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- VINAYAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MELEVALAPPIL MADHAVAN, KUMARANALLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.C N0.12938 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 4th June, 2008. Judgment Raman,J. The limited prayer in this writ petition is to direct the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur to consider and dispose of R.C.A.43/2006 within a specified time limit as expeditiously as possible. The RCP was filed before the Rent Control Court by the petitioner's husband. The Rent Control Court after trial held that the petitioner is entitled to get eviction against which the appeal was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, husband of the petitioner died and the petitioner was impleaded as legal heir. The petitioner is settled at Bombay. According to the petitioner, before the death of the husband of the petitioner, both the petitioner and her husband were residing at Bombay. They came to Kerala to settle permanently. Now she has lost her husband. She immediately requires the building for her occupation as there is no other residential building. According to the petitioner, the case is now posted on WPC 12938/08 -:2:- 1-9-2008. The appeal is of the year 2006 and any delay in disposing of the appeal will only increase hardship to the petitioner. In the view we are taking, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent. 2. Since the matter is posted to 1-9-2008, it is for the petitioner to move to advance the hearing if the matter is so urgent and if such a petition is filed, the appellate authority will bestow due consideration to the facts and circumstances and dispose of the appeal at an early date. The petitioner may produce copy of the order before the appellate authority. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvm/- WPC 12938/08 -:3:- kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: WPC 12938/08 -:4:- . was filed before the P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvm/- WPC 12938/08 -:5:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: