IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 RCRev..No. 194 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.112/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, KOZHIKODE RCP.61/2007 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KOLIYOTT ROHINI,AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.LATE KOLIYOTT JANARDHANAN,2/486 B,AMBADI, KARAPARAMBA.P.O,KACHERI AMSOM,KARUMBAKATTUSERI DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. M/S.POYYERI TRADERS,REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER, 12/1029,VALIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL SRI.V.J.JOHN SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ S.M.HYRUNNISA,AGED 57 YEARS, D/O.A.V.UTHANKOYA HAJI,19/1554 B,BATANI HOUSE, CHALAPPURAM.P.O,CALICUT. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.194 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26h day of August, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant and the alleged sub lessee are in revision impugning the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the application filed by them for formulation of a preliminary point regarding the maintainability of the RCP and the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court. According to the revision petitioners, they had specifically contended in the statement of objections filed by them to the RCP that the respondent(petitioner in the RCP) does not have absolute title over the building and that her status is only that of co-owner along with the first revision petitioner. The Rent Control Court dismissed the I.A. filed by the revision petitioners stating that such a contention is not specifically raised by the revision petitioners in their statement of objections. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the reason that regular appeal under Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965 will not be RCR.No.194/2009 2 maintainable against interlocutory orders of procedural nature. That authority also observed that no evidence has been adduced by the revision petitioners to support their contention that they are also co-owners. In other words, the Appellate Authority thought that resolution of the dispute may require evidence. 2. It is in this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised impugning the order of the Rent Control Court and the Judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and Sri.Jose Kuriakose Vilangattil, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, addressed us on all those grounds. Drawing our attention to the statement of objections filed by the revision petitioners in the RCP, the learned counsel submitted that the Rent Control Court was in error in saying that the revision petitioners have not contended that the first revision petitioner is a co-owner along with the petitioner in the RCP. 3. We have considered the submissions. We have gone through the copy of the statement of objections filed by the revision petitioners in the RCP. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that it may be possible to construe the statement of objection as containing the RCR.No.194/2009 3 contention that the first revision petitioner also is having co- ownership rights over the property. According to us, such a contention need not warrant formulation of preliminary point and enquiry as may be necessary under sub section(1) of Section 11. As rightly observed by the Appellate Authority, for substantiating the contention that the first revision petitioner is also a co-owner, evidence will have to be adduced by the first revision petitioner. In other words, we also feel that for resolution of the dispute now raised i.e. whether the first revision petitioner is a co-owner along with the petitioner in the RCP, the first revision petitioner will have to adduce evidence. The Rent Control Appellate Authority was certainly right in its view that the order passed by the Rent Control Court on an interlocutory application filed by the first revision petitioner was not a final order affecting the right of the revision petitioners and hence the RCA itself was not maintainable. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. We dispose of the RCR directing the Rent Control Court to consider the question whether the first revision petitioner is a co- RCR.No.194/2009 4 owner of the building in question along with the other questions arise for decision on the pleadings raised by the parties including the question whether there is a landlord- tenant relationship between the first revision petitioner and the petitioner in the RCP and take decision after enquiry in the RCP is completed. Since the Rent Control Petition is of the year 2007, we direct the Rent Control Court to give priority to the Rent Control Petition by special listing the same in the earliest available special list. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk