IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 25014 of 2009(V) -------------------------- RCP.69/2002 of I ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUPRIYA, D/O.RADHA, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.33/281, VATTIYOORKAVU JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- A.MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O.ABUBACKER, RESIDING AT NAZEEMA MANZIL, VARUVILAKATHU CPT JUNCTION, KACHANI P.O. PEROORKADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 25014 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 is Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapauram dismissing Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioner/landlord requesting that RCP No.69/2002 be posted for enquiry pursuant to the directions in Ext.P3 order passed by this court confirming the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the case to the Rent Control Court for reconsidering the tenant's eligibility for protection of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. Even though the respondent/tenant has been duly served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance before this court for resisting the prayers in the writ petition. 2. Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was without noticing Ext.P3 that the learned Rent Control Court dismissed the RCP. According to him, since the scope of the remand order passed by the Appellate Authority, as WPC.No.25014/2009 2 confirmed by this court, was to consider the tenant's eligibility for protection of the second proviso, the order dismissing the RCP violates the directions in Ext.P2 and P3. The above submission of Sri.Kalkura, as already indicated, is not resisted by anybody. The Rent Control Court is bound by Ext.P2 judgment of the Appellate Authority and by Ext.P3 order passed by this court. Accordingly, we set aside Ext.P6 and allow Ext.P5. The Rent Control Court is directed to restore RCP No. 69/2002 back to file and to comply with all the directions in Ext.P2 & P3. Revised judgment in compliance with those directions will be passed by the Rent Control Court at its earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition will stand allowed. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk