IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2010 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 528 of 2005(E) ------------------------------ RCA.9/2002 of ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,MAVELIKKARA RCP.2/1981 of MUNSIFF COURT/RENT CONTROL COURT,KAYAMKULAM (IA 645/1994.) .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN I.A. -------------------------------------------------- G.JOHN, KANNAYIL VEEDU, KAYAMKULAM MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN APPEAL/PETITIONER IN I.A.: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- YOHANNAN VARGHESE, KANKALIL VEEDU, KAYAMKULAM MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.528 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of December, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J This RCR has come up in the defect list on the basis of Registry's note that service is not completed. But we find that the notice which was admitted to be served on the respondent was not claimed by him and hence, returned to this Court unclaimed as early as in 2006. According to us, the service could have been declared as completed in 2006 itself. We declare that the service is completed. 2. Under challenge in this revision is the judgment of the Appellate Authority modifying an R. C. R. No.528 of 2005 -2- order passed by the Rent Control Court under the third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) considering an interlocutory application filed by the tenant under that proviso. The Rent Control Court after entering a finding that the landlord had wilfully neglected to carry out the re-construction as ordered by the Rent Control Court, permitted the tenant himself to carry out the re-construction and adjust the construction cost against the rent. The Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment modified the above order and permitted the landlord to carry out the re-construction within a stipulated time failing which only the tenant was given permission to carry out the re-construction. We fail to see why the landlord should be aggrieved R. C. R. No.528 of 2005 -3- by the judgment of the Appellate Authority. According to us, the Appellate Authority has given relief to the landlord. At any rate, having scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction for correcting the same. We dismiss the RCR as we do not find any justification for invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. However, considering the submission of Sri.George Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tenant is not at all interested in pursuing the matter, even as we dismiss the RCR, we direct the Rent Control Court to explore the possibilities of a settlement between the parties before coercive orders are R. C. R. No.528 of 2005 -4- passed against the landlord in this case. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-