IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 RCRev..No. 36 of 2008() ----------------------- RCA.74/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT/R.C.A.A., THRISSUR RCP.65/2004 of IST ADDL.MUNSIFF'S/R.C. COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: --------------------------- K.G.PAVANAN, C/O.TURBO SOFT SYSTEM INC, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------ P.D.MOHANAN, S/O.P.C.DAMODARAN, CHANDRIKA NILAYAM, MUDIKODU DESOM, KADAVALLOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE.J.PUNNACHALIL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RCR 36/2008 ORDER ON I.A.NO.357/2008 -------------------------------------- DISMISSED 7.3.2008 SD/- K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.C.R. NO.36 OF 2008-E ----------------------------------------- Dated 7th March, 2008. ORDER Balakrishnan Nair, J. The tenant is the revision petitioner. He challenges the judgment in R.C.A.No.74/2006 of the 1st Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. The petitioner who was the appellant before the appellate authority was absent. In his absence the appeal was dismissed, on the ground that it is not maintainable. The petitioner explained the reasons for his absence. He submits, he has got an arguable case and if he was heard, the fate of the appeal would have been different. Therefore, he prays, he may be given a chance to argue the appeal on merits and for that the appellate order may be set aside. The respondent seriously contests the revision. According to him, the appeal itself was not maintainable, as it is one filed by the sub- tenant without impleading the original tenant. So, the decision of the appellate authority is correct, it is submitted. 2. Owing to the absence of the petitioner, he did not get a chance to RCR 36/2008 2 properly contest the appeal. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal should be restored, of course, on terms. If the petitioner pays Rs.5000/- within one month from today to the respondent or his counsel before the appellate authority, the appellate order shall stand set aside and thereupon the appellate authority shall hear both sides and dispose of the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. If the amount is not paid as directed above, the appellate order shall stand confirmed. The R.C.R is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/