IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 256 of 2003() ------------------------ RCA.82/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE RCP.59/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN RCA./ ---------------------------------------------------------- DR. K.P. SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 'RADHALAYAM', KUTTIPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN R.C.A/PETITIONER IN R.C.P. -------------------------------------------------------- 1. KARAKUNNATH ALIKUTTY, S/O. AMMED HAJI, AGED 60 YEARS, KUNNAMKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. KARAKUNNATH RASHEED, S/O. ALIKUTTY, AGED 37 YEARS, KUNNAMKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. KARAKUNNATH SEENATH, D/O. ALIKUTTY, AGED 35 YEARS, KUNNAMKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. KARAKUNNATH SAJITHA, D/O. ALIKUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS, KUNNAMKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TLUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. KARAKUNNATH SHAKEELA, D/O. ALIKUTTY, AGED 31 YEARS, KUNNAMKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. KARAKUNNATH MAHMUD, S/O. ALIKUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS, KUNNAMKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.K.BEHANAN FOR R1,3& 5 SRI.SAM THOMAS.K FOR R1,3 & 5 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.256 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This revision petition filed by the tenant is directed against an order passed by the rent control appellate authority summarily rejecting the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner tenant against the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2) (b) of the Act. The revision petition is remaining defective on the reason that service of notice is not completed on all the respondents cum landlords who are co-owners. 2. Sri.P.A.Harish, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, the order of eviction which was impugned in the appeal has been set aside by the rent control court invoking the powers under clause (c) of sub Section (2) of Section 11. In our opinion, in view of the order passed by the rent control court under Section 11 (2)(c) vacating the original order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2) (b), the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner itself has RCR.No.256/2003 2 become unnecessary. Accordingly, we close this RCR on the basis that the revision petition itself has become unnecessary and infructuous. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk