IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1221 of 2009(N) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34571/2009 Dated 02/12/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. CHANDRAVATHI,W/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, MOODAMVAIL.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. SUNITHRA, D/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, MOODAMVAIL.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SUNANDA,D/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, MOODAMVAIL.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SHIVANANDA,D/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, MOODAMVAIL.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. RAVIPRAKASHA,S/O. LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, MOODAMVAIL.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. SUMATHI,D/O. LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, MOODAMVAIL.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. MANODATH, S/O. LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA, MOODAMVAIL.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. THARANATHA ACHARYA, S/O.NEELAYYA, NEAR KALIKAMBA TEMPLE, MADHUR.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. SANTHA KUMAR (MINOR, AGED 10 YEARS), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 8TH REVIEW PETITIONER - THARANATH ACHAYRA. 10. PRATHISH KUMAR (MINOR, AGED 6 YEARS), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 8TH REVIEW PETITIONER- THARANATH ACHAYRA. BY ADV. SRI.P.I.DAVIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASMATH, W/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED HANEEFA,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA.P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. MOHAMMED ASLAM,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA.P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SMT.FIRDOS,D/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA.P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. MOHAMMED AFSAL,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA.P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. MOHAMMED NIZAM,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA.P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. MOHAMMAD SAFEA,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA.P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. MOHAMMED JAVID,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, BAPPAITHOTTI HOUSE, UPPALA.P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. GULAM MUHAMMED,S/O.MOHAMMED SHERIF, SHERIF MAISTRY,156-158,IBRAHIM RAHMATHULLA ROAD, 11ND FLOOR, ROOM NO.11, MUMBAI-400 003. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.P.No.1221 OF 2009 in WPC No.34571 of 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioners in the writ petition seek review of our judgment dismissing the writ petition holding that there is no warrant for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 for interfering with Ext.P6 which was under challenge in the writ petition. By Ext.P6, Ext.P4 order of the Execution Court directing delivery, was approved by the District Judge in a proceeding under Section 14 of Act 2 Act of 1965. The contention, which was prominently raised in the writ petition, was that by virtue of Ext.P2 order passed by the local Land Tribunal in S.M. No.80/1992, the landlords petitioners in the RCP ceased to have title over the land upon which the petition schedule building is situated and hence directing them to carry out reconstruction and thereafter to re -induct the petitioners into the reconstructed building subject to the petitioners' liability to RP.No.1221/2009 2 pay fair rent will be meaningless. The contention was that the landlords/decree holders will not be able to carry out the reconstruction in the teeth of Ext.P2 order and objections from the part of the beneficiary under Ext.P2 order; the rival claimant to title. The review is presently sought on the observations in the penultimate paragraph of our judgment, which is quoted as follows; “As for the apprehension voiced by Sri.Sohan that the respondents will not be able to carry out reconstruction pursuant to the directions in Ext.P1 judgment, we are of the view that Ext.P1 is binding on the respondents and it is their obligation to ensure that the reconstruction is carried out in terms of the directions in Ext.P1. If they do not carry out reconstructions within the time stipulated under Ext.P1, the Rent Control Court has necessary powers in terms of the second proviso to Section 11(4)(iv) to issue appropriate direction regarding the reconstruction of the building and to give effect to the order of eviction confirmed under Ext.P1 by RP.No.1221/2009 3 passing effective orders(If it comes to that, even orders permitting the petitioners to carry out the reconstructions upon suitable terms).” 2. Referring to those observations, Sri.P.I.Davis, learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that those observations notwithstanding, due to supervening impossibility, which has presently occurred, the tenants will be on the street since the petitioners in the RCP/decree holders will not be be able to carry out reconstruction. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of this court in Shanmughan v. Rohini (1989 (2) KLT 95) and submitted that apart from Ext.P2, the extension of the Kerala Building Rules to the area where the building is situated making it obligatory for a person who constructs a building to conform to the Building Rules is a subsequent event which would render the reconstruction ordered by the various authorities under the Rent Control Act impossible of being carried out. 3. Resisting all the submissions of Sri. P.I.Davis, Smt.Prabha R.Menon, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is absolutely no warrant for invoking this RP.No.1221/2009 4 court's jurisdiction for reviewing its own order and judgment in the present case. The learned counsel reminded us of the well defined contours of the jurisdiction for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. Smt.Prabha would also submit that the landlord has already obtained exemption order from the Government regarding the proposed reconstruction. 4. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords, that there is no warrant for invoking this court's jurisdiction for review in this case. In fact the apprehensions voiced by the petitioners in this review petition were voiced in the writ petition also and in our view our observations quoted herein above take care of those apprehensions. As for the submissions of Sri.Davis with reference the judgment of this court in Shanmughan's case (supra), we are not inclined to accept those submissions in view of Smt.Prabha's submission that exemption order has already been obtained by the respondents. 5. In the above circumstances, the Review Petition will stand dismissed. However, considering the last request of RP.No.1221/2009 5 Sri.Davis that some more time be granted to the petitioners to surrender the premises, we are of the view that time can be granted (despite very stiff opposition from Sri.Prabha R.Menon) till 15/1/2010 on condition that the first revision petitioner on her behalf and representing the other petitioners files an affidavit within seven days from today before the Execution Court undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the respondents on or before 15/1/2010. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk