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 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 RCRev..No. 379 of 2006() ------------------------ RCA.27/2003 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.69/2002 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ SUPRIYA, D/O.RADHA, T.C.NO.33/281, VATTIYOORKAVU JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- A. MOHAMMED RAFI, S/O.ABUBAKCER, NAZEEMA MANZIL, VARUVILAKATHU CPT JUNCTION, KACHANI P.O.,PEROORKADA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R1 SRI.R.V.SREEJITH FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.379 of 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge, in this revision petition under Section 23 of the Building Lease & Rent Control Act, 1965, is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding the rent control petition to the Rent Control Court for taking fresh decision regarding the tenant's liability for protection of the 2nd proviso to sub section 3 of Section 11. 2. Even though Sri.R.S.Kalkura, learned counsel for the revision petitioner landlord has addressed us very strenuously and appealingly, we do not think that we will be justified, within the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20, in saying that the decision of the learned Appellate Authority is vitiated by illegality, irregularity or impropriety justifying invocation of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 20. At the same time, the anxiety of the landlord to have an early disposal of his case, wherein the bona fides of the need under sub section 3 of RCR.No.379 of 2006 2 Section 11 has been concurrently found by the two facts finding authorities under the statute, is understandable. Therefore, even as we dismiss the R.C.R. confirming the order of remand passed by the Rent Control Court, there will be a specific direction to the Rent Control Court not to grant unnecessary adjournments to the tenants for adducing evidence in the context of the second proviso to Section 11(3) and to ensure that fresh decision on the issue referred by the appellate authority is taken at the earliest and at any rate within two months of the court re- opening after mid summer holidays. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE dpk