IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 274 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RCR.436/2006 Dated 25/01/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/LANDLORD ----------------------------------------- T.MEERABAI, AGED 79 YEARS, D/O. CHANDUKUTTY, MEERAKRISHNA, KUTHIRAVATTAM IN KOTTULI AMSOM & PARAYANCHERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS/LEGAL HEIRS OF ORIGINAL TENANT) ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.T.KANARAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, METRO STEEL FABRICATE MECHANICAL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (DIED) 2. KALLIANI, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. LATE K.T.KANARAN, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK & DISTRICT. (WRONGLY SHOWN AS DIED IN THE ORDER). 3. VIJAYARAJ, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. K.T.KANARAN, R/AT -DO- -DO- 4. BEENA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. K.T.KANARAN, D/O/ -DO- -DO- BY ADV.SMT.;PRABHA R.MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.P.No.274/2011 in R.C.R.No. 436 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlady/review petitioner seeks review of our order dated 25/1/2011 on various grounds. The ground prominently raised is that the tenants no longer occupy the building and somebody else is presently conducting the business in the place of the original tenant who is already dead and gone. 2. According to Sri.T.Sethumadhavan, learned counsel for the landlady review petitioner, the subsequent event of a stranger conducting business utilising the trade licence, which was issued by the local authority in the name of the wife of the tenant, is of fundamental impact. According to the learned counsel, since that event was not noticed by this court, there is good ground for reviewing our order. 3. As directed by us, Smt.Prabha R.Menon has taken notice on behalf of the respondents/tenants and we have heard her RP.No.274/2011 2 also. According to her, there is no warrant for invocation of this court's jurisdiction for review which is delineated by Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 4. We have very anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We do not think that the so called subsequent event of a stranger carrying on business on the strength of the trade licence, which was issued by the local authority in the name of the tenant's wife, will have any impact in this case where the authorities below found that the need projected by the landlady is not a bona fide one. It will be recalled that under our order we have confirmed the finding concurrently entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the Rent Control Petition is not liable to fail by virtue of the first and second provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11. We have under our order permitted the landlady to initiate fresh rent control proceedings. If the landlady has a grievance that some unauthorised persons are conducting business in the petition schedule building, it may be possible for the landlady to invoke the ground of objectionable transfer or subletting as one of the grounds in the prospective rent control RP.No.274/2011 3 petition. It is very clear to our mind that there is no warrant for invocation of the narrow jurisdiction of this court for reviewing its own orders or judgments. The Review Petition fails and the same will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk