IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 125 of 2007() ------------------------ RCA.114/2005 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM RCP.56/2005 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANT & 2ND RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS -------------------- 1. P.M.ROSY,AGED 52 YEARS,W/O.ELIAS SEBY, PALLIPARAMBIL,KUSUMAGIRI P.O,KAKKANAD. 2. P.S.BABY ALIAS BABY ISSAC,S/O.ELIAS SEBI,PALLIPARAMBIL,KUSUMAGIRI P.O,KAKKANAD. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.P.N.INDU RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT. --------------- K.MOHAMMED,PROPRIETOR,ROBY LEATHER & RUBBER CORPORATION,BROADWAY,ERNAKULAM AND RESIDING AT QUAMEX MANZIL,PAREPARAMBIL ROAD, KALOOR,KOCHI-17. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010, ALONG WITH RCR. 126/07 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- RCR. Nos. 125 & 126 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners in RCP No. 56 of 2005 who were the appellants in RCA. Nos. 113 and 114 of 2005 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority are the revision petitioners. The rent control petition was filed by the revision petitioners seeking eviction of building having door numbers CC 40/2061 and 40/2065 invoking the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide need for own occupation. They filed inter alia an application invoking Section 12(1) seeking a summary order of eviction under Section 12(3). The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority did not grant relief to the revision petitioners taking the view that the denial of the landlords' title made by the respondents in the RCP is a bona fide one. The present revision petitioners in fact conceded that the building in question belonged to one Elias RCR. Nos. 25 & 26 of 2007 -2- Seby. The claim of the revision petitioners was that they were respectively the wife and children of the above said Elias Seby whose whereabouts have not been heard of since 1980. According to them, as his whereabouts have not been heard about more than seven years by them and others who would have ordinarily heard about him, it is to be presumed that Sri.Elias Seby is dead and gone and is survived by the revision petitioners. They placed strong reliance on an arrangement which Sri.Elias Seby had made with his bankers for transferring the monthly rent in respect of building to the name of the first revision petitioner. They also relied on a decree for arrears of rent which they had obtained against the respondents in the RCP. The statutory authorities noticed that the decree was subject to a second appeal pending before this court. They also noticed that as regards the presumptive death under Section 107 of the Evidence Act there was total dearth of pleadings in the rent control petition. RCR. Nos. 25 & 26 of 2007 -3- 2. Even though several attractive grounds have been raised in these revision petitions assailing the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, having regard to the contours of Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, we are not in a position to say that there is illegality, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 tainting the impugned judgment. We notice that the authorities below decided against the revision petitioners mainly on the reason that the RCP does not contain proper pleadings to support their case that Sri. Elias Seby was presumed to be dead in terms of Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act. We feel that on considerations of justice the revision petitioners can be permitted to withdraw from RCP.No. 56 of 2005 with liberty to institute fresh RCP. Hence both the rent control revisions are disposed of permitting the revision petitioners to withdraw from RCP No. 56 of 2005 with liberty to institute fresh rent control petition incorporating proper pleadings and invoking all grounds RCR. Nos. 25 & 26 of 2007 -4- which are presently available to them for evicting the respondents including grounds already invoked by them in RCP No. 56 of 2005. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-