IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RCRev..No. 80 of 2010 ------------------------------- RCA.13/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICTJUDGE & RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, N. PARAVUR RCP.13/2008 of RENT CONTROLLER (MUNSIFF),ALUVA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- MARY, AGED 69 YEARS, W/O.OUSEPH, THETTAYIL HOUSE, KARUKUTTY KARA, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. JOY, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ITTUPPU, PYNADATH HOUSE, ANGAMALY KARA, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. 2. AJAY KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, VELAMKUDI HOUSE, CHERANALLUR KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ R.C.R.No.80 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2010 O R D E R K.M.Joseph, J. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.2121/2008 in RCP No.13/2008. The allegations in the said I.A was briefly as follows:-- The son of the petitioner is suffering from mental illness and by exercising fraud and undue influence a document was executed by the son of the petitioner in favour of the Ist respondent. On the strength of the said document, the assignee filed the present RCP. The petitioner is a necessary party in the rent control proceedings. The son of the petitioner is under the care of the petitioner. The order of eviction passed without impleading the petitioner is illegal. The respondent disputed the contentions inter alia contending that the son of the petitioner was not suffering from any mental illness. It is contended that the son of the petitioner is married and is having children and is residing with his wife and children. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition against which an appeal is filed. The appellate authority has also dismissed the application as not maintainable. According RCR 80/2010 -2- to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if the son of the petitioner is suffering from any mental illness the petitioner must file the application as a next friend of the mentally ill person and that the petitioner filed the petition in her individual capacity contending that her son Cletus is allegedly suffering from mental illness. 2. After perusing the order we see that there is no basis to impugn the reasoning or the result of the reasoning culminating in the rejection of application as maintainable. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. We are not pronouncing on the right of the petitioner to file appropriate application. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS