IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28523 of 2010(M) -------------------------- RCRP.3/2010 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.6/2005 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONERS ----------------------------------- 1. P.JAYA, D/O. PADMINI, AGED 44 YEARS, TC 20/2764, MEKKONAM, ETTUMURI, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.MAHESWARI, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. PADMINI, RESIDING DO-DO- BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS ---------------------------------- 1. C.RETHINAM, W/O. RAJAGOPALAN, CHBECKALAVILAKATHU VEEDU, ADNIYIRAKKAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. 2. P.RAMANI, D/O. PADMINI, TC 20/2764, MEKKONAM, ETTUMURI, KARAMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KANNAN, S/O.PADMINI, RESIDING DO-DO- THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 28523 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September , 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 are Ext.P4 order passed by the Principal Munsiff, Thiruvananthapauram in E.P.No.181/2008 in RCP No.6/2005 and also Ext.P6 order of the Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram confirming Ext.P4. 2. Two points are seriously urged before us by Sri.Cibi Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioners. The first point is that the order of eviction was passed ignoring the contention of the tenant that he is kudikidappukaran. According to us, this is not a contention which is available on the Execution side. It was open to the petitioners to challenge the eviction order by filing regular appeal under Section 18. The second point, which is WPC.No.28523/2010 2 urged, is that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court is a nullity and hence the same is not executable by the Principal Munsiff. The merit of this contention is actually considered by the Execution Court as well as the learned District Judge with reference to Rule 6 of Order 22 CPC. It is not disputed before us that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had passed away after the hearing in the RCP was over and the case was posted for order by the Rent Control Court. That being so, we do not find any infirmity about Exts.P4 or P6. We also notice that the order of eviction, which is being executed, is one under Section 11 (2)(b). It is trite that orders of eviction passed under Section 11(2)(b) are tentative in the sense that they are liable to be vacated by making requisite deposits under Section 11(2)(c). According to us, the petitioners cannot have legitimate grievance if they are granted reasonable time for making requisite deposit and filing application under Section 11 (2)(c). We dismiss the writ petition. However, we direct the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery for a period of one month from today. It is open to the petitioners to pursue WPC.No.28523/2010 3 other remedies available to them as indicated hereinabove in the meanwhile. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk