IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 887 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RCR.68/2009 Dated 12/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVN.PETITIONER ------------------------------------- P.V.ABDUL HAKKIM, PONNAN VALAPPIL HOUSE,S/O.HAMSA HAJI, AGED 43 YEARS,BUSINESS,RESIDING AT MADAYI AMSOM,PUTHIYANGADI DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ARIKOTHEN REMAVATHI,D/O.SARADA, RESIDING AT AMARMAYA,NEAR JOHN MILL SHOP, TALAP,KANNUR MUNICIPALITY,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. RAMESHKUMAR,S/O.SARADA, -DO- -DO- 3. RANJITH KUMAR,D/O.SARADA, -DO- -DO- 4. AMERNATH,D/O.SARADA, -DO- -DO- 5. AMERLEKHA,D/O.SARADA, -DO- -DO- ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND FOR R1 TO 5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------ RP. No. 887 of 2009 in RCR. No. 68 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. Even though the learned counsel for the review petitioner addressed us very persuasively and extensively we don't find any warrant for invocation of this Court's jurisdiction for review of it's orders and judgments. What is urged is that this Court did not advert to the contentions of the review petitioner made in the context of sub-section (9) of Section 11. The above ground is contrary to facts. We have certainly dealt with the contention based on Section 11 (9) of Act 2 of 1965 in paragraph 4 of our judgment. We have observed that this Court will not be able to countenance any lease providing for a period of more than one year unless the same is evidenced by a registered instrument. The other point which is urged, is that principles of estoppel were involved in the RCP. The RP. No. 887/09 - 2 - argument was that the tenant had expended Rs.10 lakhs for effecting improvements to the building in question. This the tenant did with the knowledge of the landlord and therefore the landlord is estopped from evicting the tenant. We don't think that the above point, which is to a certain extent a point of fact also, not seen raised specifically by the tenant review petitioner before the authorities below should be allowed to be raised. Moreover, we don't find any evidence adduced by the review petitioner for substantiating the above point that so much of money has been expended and that too with the concurrence or knowledge of the landlord. The RP will stand dismissed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ksv/-