IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1126 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RCR.142/2007 Dated 13/08/2009 RCA.25/2002 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- NAREEKKODAN RAMLA, D/O. HAMSA, AGED 27 YEARS, TAILOR, KOVVAPPURAM, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, POST KUNHIMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY SRI.C.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MUNDAYAT PURAYIL KUNHABDULLA, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT MUNDOOR, KOKKAD, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, POST MUNDOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. K. ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O. MAMMAD, AGED 49 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT PILATHARA, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, POST PILATHARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB R1 SRI.MURALIKRISHNAN ( PAYYANNUR) R2. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.P.No. 1126 OF 2009 in R.C.R. NO. 142 OF 2007. ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlady seeks review of our judgment mainly on the ground that there is no surviving dispute regarding the identity of the building belonging to her and presently possessed by the respondents. Annexure-1 series of photographs are relied on to show that the petition schedule premises, in which the respondents are carrying on business under the name and style of “Mubarak Store”, is the northern most room in a row of three rooms in the ground floor of a larger building. Ext.A3 rent chit admitted by the respondents is also relied on to show that the room let out to the respondents is the northern most. 2. On this Review Petition coming up for admission, Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner addressed us very extensively. According to him, during the course of his arguments in the RCR, he made a wrong submission that the building belonging to the revision petitioner is the southern most room. According to the learned counsel, once it RP.No.1126/2009 2 is found that the building let out to the respondents is the northern most one, as the tenant contended and as was found by the authorities below, it will be possible to maintain the RCP and order eviction. He submitted that the permission granted under the impugned judgment insists that if fresh rent control petition to be filed after rectifying all mistakes, Khadeeja, the review petitioner's sister, should also join as a party. There may be practical difficulties for getting Smt.Khadeeja also to join the revision petition as a co-petitioner in the prospective RCP. 3. We have considered the submissions of Sri.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Having due regard to the well defined contours of this court's jurisdiction for reviewing its own orders and judgments, we do not think that grounds for review are made out. We dispose of the Review Petition modifying our judgment dated 13/8/2009 to the extent of saying that on the strength of the permission granted to the revision petitioner to institute fresh RCP, she can file fresh RCP by herself, even without the junction of her sister Khadeeja. It is also clarified that permission is granted to institute fresh RCP in respect of the northern most room in which the presently the RP.No.1126/2009 3 respondents are conducting Mubarak Stores. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk