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 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 RCRev..No. 242 of 2009() ------------------------ RCA.87/2004 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR RCOP.33/1996 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY, S/O.PADINJARETHALA PORINJU, SWISS WATCH COMPANY, SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.A.R.NIMOD RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- RAMESAN, S/O.PANDARIPARAMBIL GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL FOR CAVEATOR & ADV. SHRI. T.K.CHINNAN THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ R.C.R. NO: 242 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2009. O R D E R PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. On scanning the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and also the order of the Rent Control Court which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and on hearing the submissions of Mr. V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Mr. T.K.Chinnan who lodged a caveat on behalf of the landlord, we came to be of the view that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is not vitiated to the extent of warranting invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. However, we noticed some merit in the submission of Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel that unless provisions are made for enabling the revision petitioner to access the room which is having a width of 7.6 feet, i.e., the portion shown in sketch No:2 submitted by the Advocate Commissioner along with Ext.C1 report and also to facilitate the user of the varandah which is common to the petition schedule room as well as the above portion having width of 7.6 ft. and the 242/2009 2 staircase leading to the above portion, the resultant situation will be that on being evicted from the petition schedule room the revision petitioner will be virtually evicted from the portion having 7.6 ft. also. We, therefore, on 4.11.2009 passed the following order:- “Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel on behalf of the revision petitioner, submits that the area having width of 7.6 feet shown in the plan submitted by the advocate commissioner (at the bottom side) belongs to the revision petitioner and unless a new door is installed, it will not be possible for the revision petitioner to access that part of the first floor room which belongs to him. The learned counsel requested that the respondent be directed to provide right of way through his part of the petition schedule room to the revision petitioner's part of the room. 2. Sri.T.K.Chinnan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned appellate authority has found that it will always be possible to replace the existing window on the northern side of the revision petitioner's part of the building by a door. He submitted that the respondent will be prepared to 242/2009 3 replace the window by a door provided the cost is borne by the revision petitioner. 3. Under the above circumstances, we direct Sri.Chinnan, learned counsel for the respondent, to seek instructions from his client as to whether the respondent will be prepared to install a door in the place of the window in question at the respondent's own cost. 4. In the meanwhile, there will be a direction to the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building.” 2. Today Shri. T.K. Chinnan, counsel for the landlord submits that his client will not be able to install any door in place of the window in question since the building portion having width of 7.6 ft. does not belong to him. 3. We find merit in the above submission of Mr. T.K.Chinnan. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the RCR can be disposed of confirming the order of eviction and granting reasonable time for the revision petitioner issuing directions which will enable continued user of the staircase, the varandha and the room having width of 7.6 ft. 4. Accordingly, the RCR is disposed of issuing the following 242/2009 4 directions:- a) Order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority is confirmed. b) The revision petitioner is permitted to make use of the staircase leading to the first floor of the larger building of which the petition schedule is a part as well as the verandha lying in front of the petition schedule room as well as the room having width of 7.6 ft already under his possession. c) The petitioner is permitted to install a door on the northern wall of the room having 7.6 ft. for the purpose of entering into that room portion from the verandah, after obtaining consent from the owner of that portion (if that portion does not belong to the petitioner). 5. The petitioner is granted time till 15.3.2010 to vacate subject to the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Execution Court within three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition schedule building to the respondent on or before 15.3.2010 and undertaking further that he will discharge 242/2009 5 arrears of rent, if any, and will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent as and when the same falls due. ii) It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- L.A.A.NO: --------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: