IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 58 of 2004(B) ------------------------ RCA.18/2003 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.71/2002 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- SUNISH S. ANAND, AGED 27, S/O. SADANANDAN, PROPRIETOR, BENSUN CREATIONS, T.C.14/1283, PALAYAM, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI SRI.AHZAR.A. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER --------------- DAISY LOUICE, W/O. LOUIS, AGED 54, T.C.14/1478, PALAYAM WARD, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU [CAVEATOR] SRI.V.R.GOPU FOR R1 SRIC.R.SUDHEESH FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No. 58 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision petition filed by the tenant is the order of the Rent Control Court impounding a document which was produced by the tenant and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. The submission of Sri.A.Ahzar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner never wanted to have the document marked and much less received as evidence in the case is not resisted by anybody. Learned counsel's submission was that the document was not produced by the tenant directly and was produced on an application from the custody of the third party. The Rent Control Court, on receiving the document straight away passed the order directing impounding of the document. We are convinced that it is only when the document was attempted to be put in evidence by the revision petitioner that the learned Rent Control Court passed the impugned RCR.No.58/04 2 order. But the fact remains that the document was never received as evidence or relied on by the revision petitioner. We are told that the issue between the parties is over. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the document has become irrelevant also, since the tenancy has been terminated and building has been surrendered. Under the above circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the basis that the issue no longer survives for consideration. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.58/04 2