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 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 RCRev..No. 138 of 2010() ------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE APPEAL SUIT NO.47/2008 OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, VATAKARA IN E.A. NO.140/2008 IN E.P. NO. 76/2008 IN R.C.P. 35/2007) REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/CLAIM PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------------- 1. KALYANI AMMA,W/O.KUNHIRAMAN VYDIAR, 68 YEARS,VATTAPARAMBATH VELLUR AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DIST,KERALA STATE. 2. RAMACHANDRAN S/O.KUNHIRAMAN VYDIER, 48 YEARS,VATTAPARAMBATH, VELLUR AMSON AND DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE DIST, KERALA. 3. PREMARAJAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN VYDIER, 38 YEARS,VATTAPARAMBATH, VELLUR AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DIST.KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.N.SHANOJ RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER/JUDGMENT DEPTOR: --------------- 1. ANANTHOTH KUNHIKKANNAN, S/O.CHATHUKUTTY 79 YEARS,ADVOCATE,KUMMANCODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST.KERALA. 2. VENGOYIL V.M ANIL KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN, 34 YEARS,BUSINESS, THONDARNAD AMSOM AND DESOM, MANANTHAVADI TALUK, WYNAD DIST.KERALA STATE. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAI THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 138 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Vatakara in Appeal Suit No.47/2008. The appeal suit was directed against the order passed by the Munsiff, Vadakara in a claim petition filed by the appellants. We are of the view that the present revision filed under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is not maintainable within the contours of Section 20. Under Section 20 this court, as revisional authority, is empowered to examine the records relating to orders passed by the rent control appellate authority empowered under Section 18 for the purpose of satisfying as to legality, regularity and propriety of such orders or proceedings of the appellate authority. The impugned judgment falls outside the purview of Section 20. The RCR is dismissed as not maintainable. But, this judgment will not stand in the way of the appellants pursuing RCR.No.138/2010 2 other legal remedies if any available to them against the impugned judgment. Return the certified copy of the impugned judgment in A.S. No.47/2008 to the counsel for the revision petitioners at the earliest. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk