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 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 RCRev..No. 401 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.34/2009 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM RC (OP)39/2008 of ADDL.RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAGADEESAN, S/O.MANU, AGED 61 YEARS, AYYAPPAS, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, PEROOR CHERRY,KOLLAM. 2. SULATHA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.JAGADEESAN, AYYAPPAS, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, PEROOR CHERRY,KOLLAM. 3. ANUPA, AGED 26 YEARS,D/O.JAGADEESAN, AYYAPPAS, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, PEROOR CHERRY,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SAJEEV KUMAR, S/O.TRILOCHANAN, AGED 35 YEARS, SAJEEV NIVAS, KMCPO, KARIKKODU,KOLLAM - 691 001. 2. PREETHI, W/O.SAJEEV KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, SAJEEV NIVAS, KMCPO, KARIKKODU,KOLLAM - 691 001. R2 BY ADVS. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.K.G.BINDU. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. ------------------------------- RCR.NO. 401 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose ,J. Under challenge in this revision filed by respondents in RCP 39/2008 on the files of the Additional Rent Control Court, Kollam is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court in IA.No.2029/2009. By the above order the Rent Control Court found that the plea of denial of landlord's title raised by the tenant revision petitioner is not bonafide. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a comprehensive suit OS.No.59/2009 has been filed before the Sub Court, Kollam. If the eviction order which may be passed by the Rent Control Court is allowed to be executed, the above suit will become infructuous. We suggested to Smt. K.G.Bindhu, learned counsel for the landlord that the eviction order to be passed can be made subject to the decision of the Sub Court in the above suit. She submitted that the suit is not being prosecuted by the petitioner and the same was dismissed for non prosecution and it was restored and even now pre trial steps have not been taken. 2. Having considered the rival contentions addressed at the bar RCR.401/2011 2 we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the appellate authority which is impugned in this case. However as comprehensive suit is pending, we direct the learned Subordinate Judge who is to try the suit to put the suit in the earliest available special list and to try the suit and to take a decision on the basis of the evidence on record. There will be a similar direction to the Rent Control Court to try RCP 39/2008 at the earliest and to take a decision on the grantability of the eviction order on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. If an eviction order is passed in the RCP earlier than the suit is decided by the learned Subordinate Judge the learned Munsiff who is to execute the eviction order in the RCP will keep in abeyance execution proceedings for a period of 4 months. If in the meanwhile the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, then naturally appropriate orders will be passed in the execution petition by the learned Munsiff. But if the suit is decided against the revision petitioner the learned Munsiff shall proceed with the execution. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE pmn/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE RCR.401/2011 3