IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 RCRev..No. 319 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.4/2004 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM RCP.3/2001 of RENT CONTROLLER/MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... (S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ P.N.SAGAR, AGED 62, S/O.NANU, SREEKOVIL, PANANGADU, VALAVUCODE, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------ MUBARAKKU BEVI, W/O.BABU MUTHU MEERAN, HOUSE NO.10128, CREMPETTE SANTHI NAGAR CHENNAI REPRESENTED BY IBRAHIM SHERIFF, S/O.A.S.M.SHERIFF SHA MANZIL, VALAVUCODE, PUNALUR-673 592. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEF FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- R.C.R. No.319 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011. O R D E R C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. This revision petition is instituted under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, against dismissal of an appeal, R.C.A.No.4/2004, which was preferred by the tenant against an order of eviction passed in R.C.P.No.3/2001. The eviction of the revision petitioner/ tenant was ordered on grounds specified under Section 11 (2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v). The case in question had a checkered history and the present revision petition is the fourth round of litigation instituted before this Court. A brief narration of the history and facts of the case will be useful. 2. The revision petitioner/tenant resisted the Rent Control Petition denying landlord-tenant relationship and disputing title of the landlady with respect to the scheduled 2 R.C.R. No.319 of 2011 building. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the landlady through her Power of Attorney Holder Sri.Ibrahim Sherief, who is her brother. The tenant also disputed locus standi of the Power of Attorney Holder. Apart from denial of landlady-tenant relationship and competence of the Power of Attorney Holder, no contention was raised disputing the grounds for eviction, upon which the Rent Control Petition was instituted. On the question of denial of title, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, the Rent Control Court found that the dispute is not bonafide. Attempt made by the tenant to challenge that finding in appeal, was unsuccessful. The tenant further filed revision before this Court as C.R.P.No.904/03. In the meanwhile, the Rent Control Petition was listed for trial. Since the tenant failed in cross examining the landlord, the Rent Control Petition was allowed ex-parte. I.A.No.663/03 was filed by the tenant seeking to set aside the ex-parte order. But the said application was dismissed by the Rent Control Court mainly observing that, on the date on which the 3 R.C.R. No.319 of 2011 tenant was declared ex-parte, the adjournment was sought for on the ground that C.R.P.No.904/2003 is coming up for admission before this Court. But it is revealed that on the very same day, the C.R.P. was got dismissed as not pressed. Against dismissal of I.A.No.663/2003, the revision petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A.No.4/2004. But the appellate authority concurred with the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal, along with R.C.A.No.3/2004, which was instituted against the ex-parte order of eviction passed in R.C.P.No.3/2001. The tenant preferred revision petitions against the dismissal of the appeals as R.C.R.Nos.102/2006 and 104/2006. Through a common judgment dated 2.4.2009 this Court set aside the judgments of the appellate authority and remanded R.C.A.No.4/2004 for fresh disposal. Noticing that the only material defence taken in the Rent Control Petition is regarding competency of the Power of Attorney Holder, the appellate authority was directed to examine the question regarding competency of the signatory, in order to arrive at 4 R.C.R. No.319 of 2011 a conclusion with respect to the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition as well as sustainability of the order of eviction passed. While remanding the matter, this Court insisted payment of arrears of rent at a rate of Rs.350/- per month from 13.3.2000 onwards till the date of order of eviction and at the enhanced rate of Rs.500/- per month from 1.5.2001 onwards, along with payment of a cost of Rs.3,000/- to the landlady. It is brought out that the revision petitioner herein had challenged the common order passed in the revisions before the Honourable Supreme Court, but the Special Leave Petition was dismissed in limine. 3. In view of the remand ordered by this Court, the appellate authority had taken up R.C.A.No.4/2004 for fresh consideration and disposal. But since it is noticed that the tenant had failed to comply with the conditions stipulated in the common judgment of this Court in R.C.R.Nos.102 of 2006 and 104 of 2006, the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently the tenant filed a review petition along with 5 R.C.R. No.319 of 2011 an application seeking condonation of delay. A writ petition was filed before this Court as W.P.(C) No.5522 of 2010 seeking direction for an early disposal of the review petition. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the review petition, after condoning the delay, subject to condition imposed for payment of a sum of Rs.43,500/- towards arrears of rent within seven days and also to make payment of Rs.3,500/- towards cost to the respondent and payment of a further sum of Rs.1,500/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee. Even though the tenant complied with the conditions stipulated, the review petition was dismissed by the appellate authority holding that there is no merit in the application. The tenant again approached this Court by filing R.C.R.No.212 of 2010. Even though this Court concurred with the appellate authority that the review petition is not sustainable as it lacks from ingredients warranting review, noticing compliance of the conditions stipulated in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.5522 of 6 R.C.R. No.319 of 2011 2010 the revision petition was allowed and the order of the appellate authority was set aside, subject to condition of the tenant paying cost of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent and Rs.1,000/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee. The appellate authority was directed to restore R.C.A.No.4 of 2004 on its files and to dispose of the appeal afresh in compliance with the directions contained in the order in R.C.R.No.102 of 2006. The appellate authority thereafter had considered the matter on merits and dismissed the appeal through the judgment which is impugned in this revision petition. 4. Various grounds are raised assailing the impugned judgment. Sri.T.Rajesh learned counsel for the petitioner addressed detailed arguments. In the attenuated jurisdiction vested upon this Court under Section 20 of the Act, which is revisional in nature, we are not expected to conduct any re-appraisal of the evidence on record. In the case at hand, as observed above, the tenant had resisted the Rent Control Petition solely on the ground of denial of 7 R.C.R. No.319 of 2011 landlord-tenant relationship and also on the denial of the competence of the Power of Attorney Holder. Referring to the certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.79 of 2002 of the Munsiff's court, Punalur, and also referring to Ext.B7 document marked in that judgment, which is an agreement executed by the revision petitioner/tenant, the appellate authority found that the tenant had accepted landlord- tenant relationship. So also we notice that, referring to the certified copy of the Power of Attorney as well as the attested copy of the same produced before the appellate authority, categoric findings has been arrived to the effect that there was a properly constituted Power of Attorney executed by the landlady. Further the appellate authority found that the landlady had filed an affidavit swearing that the attorney has got every right to contest the proceedings on her behalf, since she has lawfully given authority to him by virtue of the Power of Attorney, dated 29.6.2000. We do not find any material illegality, irregularity or impropriety with respect to those findings. 8 R.C.R. No.319 of 2011 5. From the nature of the prolonged litigations pursued by the revision petitioner/tenant it is evident that the attempt was only to protract the matter by raising technical disputes. We do not find any materials warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction. There is no case for the revision petitioner to the effect that the appellate authority had failed in any manner in considering the questions upon which the remand was ordered. We feel there is strong basis for upholding the conclusions of the appellate authority. In the result the revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/