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 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 RCRev..No. 324 of 2007() ------------------------ RCA.53/2006 of VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.3/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS IN R.C.A.NO.53 ------------------------------------------------------------------ * FR.P.M.KURIAKOSE, AGED 99 YEARS, (DIED) PUKKUNNEL HOUSE, ANGADI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABRAHAM KURIAKOSE, AGED 44 YEARS, PUKKUNNEL HOUSE ANGADI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE. * ADDL. 2ND REVISION PETITIONER ABRAHAM KURIAKOSE, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.FR.P.M.KURIAKOSE, PUKKUNNEL HOUSE ANGADI KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE (IMPLEADED AS THE ADDITIONAL 2ND REVISION PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DT 6-11-2009 IN IA.968/09.) BY ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ SRI.SREEJITH V.S. SMT.ANALAKHUSI BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ MOHANAN, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O. MANIAN, PUTHEEKAL HOUSE, ANGADI KARA, KOTHAMANHALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO. 2620/2007 IN RCR NO.324/2007 DISMIISSED. 13-01-2010. SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE SD/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE // True Copy // P.A. To Judge PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` R.C.Rev. No. 324 of 2007 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. It appears to us that the landlord revision petitioner is voicing a genuine grievance. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, remanded the RCP to the Rent Control Court for deciding after enquiry as to whether the apparent insertion on the rent chit that the monthly rent is Rs.1,250/- is a genuine one agreed upon by the tenant. However, the remand judgment contains a finding elsewhere that the above insertion is a subsequent insertion. Having decided to remand the case for determining the genuineness of the insertion, it was not proper on the part of the appellate authority to have entered a specific finding that the insertion is a subsequent one made after the deed was executed by the parties. Even as we confirm the order of remand, we expunge the finding contained in the impugned judgment that RCR.324/2007 : 2 : the insertion in question is a subsequent one. The Rent Control Revision is allowed to the above limited extent only. In all other respects, the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority will stand confirmed. Sd/- (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) Sd/- (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge