IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 RCRev..No. 96 of 2011(B) ----------------------------- RCA.8/2004 of DISTRICT COURT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD RCP.10/2003 of ADDL. MUNSIFF, KASARAGOD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- PURUSHOTHAMAN.K., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SHEKARA, DOOR.NO.M.P.V/416, UPPALA MAIN JUNCTION, PO UPPALA, MILINJA VILLAGE, KSARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): /RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------ 1. AFROZ BANU, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. LATE HAJEE SAYYED YOUSUFF, RESIDING AT "SAYYED MANSION", KURCHIPALLA PO UPPALA-671322 UPPALA VILLAGE KASARAGODE TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. AZIMULLA, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. LATE HAJEE SAYYED YOUSUFF, RESIDING AT "SAYYED MANSION", KURCHIPALLA, PO UPPALA-671322 UPPALA VILLAGE, KASARGODE TALUK & DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2 SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 & 2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.96 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J This revision under Section 20 filed by the tenant is directed against an order of eviction concurrently passed in favour of the respondents under Section 11(2)(b). Incidentally there was a contention whether the denial of the respondent's title made by the revision petitioner was bona fide. Even though the findings of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are concurrent this Court became inclined to admit this revision only in view of the submission by the petitioner that the Honourable Supreme Court is in seizin of SLP Nos.23503/09 and 23504/09 wherein a dispute between the respondent and another person as to the ownership over the building in question is under consideration. 2. Today we are told that the above dispute has now R. C. R. No.96 of 2011 -2- been settled by the Supreme Court in favour of the respondents. In fact, Annexure-R2(a), copy of the Supreme Court's order has been placed on record by the respondents. In view of Annexure-R2(a), we do not find any sustainable ground to assail the judgment of the Appellate Authority. The RCR has to fail. 3. However, on considering the appealing request of Sri.Jawar Jose for grant of some time to surrender the premises we are inclined to grant time till 30/06/12 subject to the following conditions:- 1) The revision petitioner shall discharge the entire arrears of rent as found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority in their orders within a period of three months from today and invoke the provision of Section 11(2) (c) for getting the order of eviction vacated. If the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) is not got vacated as directed above it is open to the respondents to levy execution of the order of eviction. Sri.Jawahar Jose submitted that an application seeking review of Annexure- R. C. R. No.96 of 2011 -3- R2(a) order is pending before the Supreme Court. It is needless to mention that in case the above review petition is allowed by the Supreme Court in favour of the revision petitioner claiming title over the building, it is open to the revision petitioner to convey the information to the Rent Control Court and we are sure that the Rent Control Court while dealing with the application under Section 11(2)(c) will take due note of the same. It is needless to mention that if eviction order is vacated under Section 11(2)(c), the petitioner can continue in possession as a tenant. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- R. C. R. No.96 of 2011 -4-