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 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 RCRev..No. 384 of 2011() ------------------------ ORDER IN I.A. NO.804/2010 IN RCA.9/2009 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ,MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN I.A. NO.804/2010 (S): -------------------- JYOTHISEKHAR, S/O.UDAYA PANICKER, RESIDING AT SREE SATHYASAI NIVAS T.C.11/1427, MNR MINTHRI NAGAR, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S)/CR.PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. HARIDASAN, DEVI BHAVANAM, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. SUNILKUMAR, UDAYAPURAM VEEDU FROM EDAYILE VEEDU, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV.SMT.S.L.SYLAJA THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 384 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed by a person, who sought his impleadment as additional respondent in RCA No.9/2009, is the order in I.A. No.804/2010 which was the application for impleadment filed by the revision petitioner. 2. The Rent Control Petition was instituted by one Sri.Udaya Panicker. Sri.Udaya Panicker was admittedly the owner and landlord of the building. The rent control petition was instituted seeking eviction of the first respondent Haridasan who was admittedly the tenant in possession of the building. In RCP No.13/2006 the rental arrangement set up is originally between Sri.Udaya Panicker and the first respondent and what is stated therein is that the ownership of the building is transferred to the 2nd respondent Sunil Kumar who is said to be son of Sri.Udaya Panicker. I.A. No.804/2010 was filed by the present revision RCR.No.384/2011 2 petitioner claiming that he is the son of Sri.Udaya Panicker and that the building in question has been bequeathed in his favour under a registered Will. The learned Appellate Authority has dismissed the application stating reasons. 3. In this revision the above order is assailed by the revision petitioner on various grounds. We have heard Sri.K.B.Pradeep learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.S.L.Sylaja learned counsel for the 2nd respondent (2nd petitioner in the rent control petition) who had lodged a caveat in anticipation of this revision. 4. The short question, which arises for decision by us, is whether there is warrant for interfering with the order impugned within the contours of the present jurisdiction under Section 20. According to us, the above question is to be answered in the negative. Firstly, the impugned order is an interlocutory order of procedural nature. Secondly, we are told that the 2nd respondent has already instituted O.S. No. 72/2010 arraying the revision petitioner and other children of Sri.Udaya Panicker seeking a decree of declaration of right , title and possession over the various properties including the property which is subject RCR.No.384/2011 3 matter of this rent control proceedings and for consequential reliefs by way of injunction. 5. We decline revisional jurisdiction and dismiss the revision petition. We, however, make it clear that any decision which may be taken in the present rent control proceedings finally will not cause any prejudice to the contentions of the revision petitioner to be raised by him in O.S. No.72/2010. We also make it clear that the findings entered by the learned Appellate Authority in the order which is impugned in this revision shall also cause no prejudice to the claims and contentions of the revision petitioner in the civil proceedings initiated interestingly by the 2nd respondent himself. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk RCR.No.384/2011 4