IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 FAO.No. 21 of 2006 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/12/2005 IN IA 1228 /2005 IN AS.292/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/CR.PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. V.JANAKI BHAI, MADATHIL PARAMBIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, ETTUMANOOR. 2. M.S.BALAKRISHNAN, MADATHIL PARAMBIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, ETTUMANOOR. 3. M.S.SANTHOSH, MADATHIL PARAMBIL, KIZHAKKUM BAGOM, ETTUMANOOR. 4. M.S.VINOD, MADATHIL PARAMBIL, KIZHAKKUM BAHGOM, ETTUMANOOR. 5. M.S.RAJESH, MADATHIL PARAMBIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, ETTUMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF. --------------------------------------------------------- R.VISWANATHA PAI, MABLATHANIYIL, ETTUMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V KURUP, COVEATOR SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP FOR RESPONDENT THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, ALONG WITH FAO NO. 22 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: FAO.No. 21 of 2006 ORDER ON I.A.258 OF 2006 DISMISSED 27/08/2008 SD/-M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P. A TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- F.A.O. Nos. 21 & 22 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT During the pendency of these appeals, an interim order was passed by this court granting permission to the tenant to effect the minimum repair which is required for his occupation of the building. It was further directed that he cannot claim the expenses which he incurs, from the landlord. It was also observed that it will be without prejudice to the right of the landlord to reconstruct the building in accordance with law. The entitlement of the tenant to have any preferential claim over the right of the landlord was also negatived. Therefore, in the light of this interim order, the subject matter of the appeal has become infructuous. Therefore, both these appeals are dismissed as infructuous. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps