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 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 RCRev..No. 233 of 2008 --------------------------- RCA.17/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE RCP.8/2005 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT/RENT CONTROLLER, PERAMBARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------- THONDAYERI BALAN, KALLOTH, CHENOLI AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL SIVADASAN, CHATHOTH PARAMBIL, MENJANIAM AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. CHATHOTH PARAMBIL C.P.CHANDRAN, SWASTHAM, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R1 & R2 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.233 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J This is a revision by the tenant and he impugns the order of eviction concurrently passed against him by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Even though, we do not find any warrant for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 since no infirmity, irregularity or impropriety as envisaged under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is noticed on the order under challenge, we would have been ordinarily inclined to grant at least six months time to the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises subject to his giving an undertaking before the R. C. R. No.233 of 2008 -2- execution court that he will peacefully surrender the premises before the expiry of the time given and that he will discharge arrears of rent, if any, we are however, unable to do so in this case since we are informed that even during the currency of order of stay passed by this Court, the Munsiff's Court ordered and effected delivery without noticing the order passed by this Court. It is seen that the petitioner filed an application before the execution court not to record delivery in view of the pendency of the RCR. We are informed that the above application was also dismissed on the reason that the delivery is already effected. Having regard to the submissions addressed before us by Sri.B.Krishnamani, the learned counsel R. C. R. No.233 of 2008 -3- for the petitioner and Sri.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the landlord, we feel that there may not be serious objections from the side of the landlord to the tenant being allowed to retain the building in question for six more months from today provided it is ensured that the petitioner/tenant will put the landlord back in possession of the building on or before 15/04/2010 and that the tenant discharges the arrears of rent and continues to pay occupational charges for the above period of six months granted at the rate of Rs.250/- per mensm. Under the above circumstances, even as we dispose of the RCR without granting any relief to the revision petitioner, we permit the revision petitioner to file an application before the execution court for re-delivery. That application will be disposed R. C. R. No.233 of 2008 -4- of by the learned Munsiff with notice to the landlord in the light of the observations made herein above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-