IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRP.NO. 655 OF 2010() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2010 IN EA.725/2010, IN EP.114/2010 IN OS.395/2001 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) - PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ KRISHNAN, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, POOVANVILAKATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEUDU, VALIYAVILA, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENT & DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PONNU PANICKER SASIDHARAN, SOUMYA, PIRAYAKKODU PARANKIMAVILA, MARANALOOR DESOM, DO VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 679 572. 2. GEETHA, W/O.LATE VISWANATHAN, VISWANILAYAM, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O., MARANALOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 679 572. 3. ARUN, S/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, VISWANILAYAM, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O., MARANALOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 679 572. 4. AISWARYA, D/O.LATE VISWANATHAN, VISWANILAYAM, OORUTTAMBALAM P.O., MARANALOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 679 572. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.655 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010. ORDER Respondent No.1 appears through counsel. 2. This revision is preferred by the petitioner in E.A.No.725 of 2010 in E.P.No.114 of 2010 in O.S.No.395 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-I, Neyyattinkara. Respondent No.1 has obtained a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of his title against respondent Nos.2 to 4 who are legal representatives of the deceased defendant. It was the case of respondent No.1 that deceased defendant trespassed into the suit property. The decree has been confirmed by this Court in R.S.A.No.713 of 2010. In execution of the decree, petitioner claimed to be a tenant under Act 2 of 1965 having obtained the shoproom in question on rent from deceased defendant on 09.07.1996. Petitioner filed E.A.No.725 of 2010 claiming that there shall not be physical delivery against him as he is a building tenant entitled to the protection of Act 2 of 1965. Though petitioner produced Ext.A1, series, executing court found that those documents purported to be rent receipts were only for the period from 05.01.2010 to 06.06.2010 are not sufficient to prove the alleged tenancy on 09.07.1996 and dismissed E.A.No.725 of 2010. That order is under challenge. 3. Though various contentions are raised in this revision petition as to the correctness of the order learned counsel for petitioner has not pursued CRP No.655/2010 2 those contentions before me. Learned counsel submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 have preferred S.L.P.No.34760 of 2010 in the Supreme Court against judgment and decree of this Court in R.S.A.No.713 of 2010 and that the Special Leave Petition is coming up for hearing on this day. Learned counsel states that if the Supreme Court granted stay of execution and if in the meantime petitioner is evicted from the shoproom he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Petitioner therefore requested that until the matter is decided by the Supreme Court, the physical delivery of possession of the room may be prevented. I have heard learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well. Learned counsel submits that it has been concurrently found in favour of respondent No.1 that he is the title holder of property and that deceased defendant was a trespasser in the property in which case even if a tenancy was created by deceased defendant, that cannot in any way affect respondent No.1 and his right to get vacant possession of the property. 4. Now correctness of the impugned order is not challenged before me and hence it is not necessary to go into the rival contentions. The only request made by learned counsel is to keep in abeyance physical delivery in respect of the shoproom occupied by petitioner until the Supreme Court passed orders in the application for stay in the Special Leave Petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has agreed not to take physical delivery of the room occupied by petitioner for a period of one month or until the Supreme Court passed appropriate orders on the application for stay of execution, whichever is earlier. That undertaking is recorded. CRP No.655/2010 3 Resultantly this petition is disposed of recording undertaking made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 will not take physical delivery of the shoproom occupied by petitioner for a period of one month from this day or till the Supreme Court passed orders on the application for stay in the Special Leave Petition, whichever is earlier. I.A.No.3088 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks