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 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 RCRev..No. 407 of 2011(A) ------------------------------- RCA.15/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ADDL. DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC-I), MANJERI RCP.13/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TIRUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------- ----------------------------------------- KIZHAKKEVEETIL SATHYAN, S/O.BHASKARAN POOKAYIL, POST TIRUR, TIRUR AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- 1. ABOOBACKER SIDEEQUE, S/O.THATAYANKANDATHIL HASSAN, POOKAYIL, POST TIRUR, TIRUR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 676 101. 2. IBINU ALI HASSAN, S/O.THRAYANKANDATHIL ABUBACKER SIDEEQUE, POST POOKAYIL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM.676 101. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.407 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J This revision under Section 20 is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal on the basis of a memo submitted by the appellant's counsel to the effect that he is having no instructions from his party. It is seen from the impugned order that after recording the memo submitted by the counsel the name of the appellant/revision petitioner was called and noticing his absence only the appeal was dismissed. Almost all the grounds raised in this revision challenge the eviction order on merits. The last ground is that even in a situation where the appellant is absent and the appellant's counsel reports no instructions, the court has an obligation to decide the appeal on merits. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner was not able to R. C. R. No.407 of 2011 -2- substantiate this ground. The learned counsel, however, would draw our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh (1998(2) SCC 206) and this Court in Jayalakshmi v. Avara (2003 KHC 503). On the basis of those judgments the learned counsel submitted that in a fact situation similar to the one which obtains this case, the court had a duty to issue notice to the appellant/ revision petitioner as it is quite possible that the appellant/revision petitioner was not aware of posting of the appeal on fateful day before the Appellate Authority. 2. Having considered the submissions of Sri.Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, we feel that the RCR can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority itself for a restoration/re-admission of the appeal. If the petitioner files an application for restoration/re-admission of the appeal within five days from today on or before 01/11/11 the learned Appellate Authority will take a decision on the application with notice to the respondent at the earliest. In R. C. R. No.407 of 2011 -3- view of the above direction and the submission of Sri.Sunil Kumar that the execution court has already ordered delivery we direct the execution court to postpone the delivery by at least three weeks from 27/10/11. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-