IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1129 of 2009(V) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5013/2009 Dated 18/09/2009 OS.34/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC ------------------------------------------------ 1. ARSHADA, W/O.ABDUL RASHEED, SHABEER NIVAS, T.C.NO.29/625, KAITHAMUKKU, SEEVELI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ABDUL RASHEED, H/O.ARSHADA, SHABEER NIVAS, T.C.NO.29/625, KAITHAMUKKU, SEEVELI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER IN WP: -------------------------------- GANESAN, S/O.LATE THANKAPPAN ACHARY, SINDU VILASOM, AMC XII/77, NEAR ATTAKULAM, ATTINGAL. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.1129 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 5013 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th November, 2009 ORDER Petitioners are the respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition which has been disposed by judgment dated 18.9.2009. Petitioners are the landlords of a building previously under the occupation of the respondent/petitioner in the writ petition. The respondent/tenant had filed a suit for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction alleging threat of forcible eviction from the tenanted premises by the landlords. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was entered into, by which the tenant surrendered the leased premises on the solemn promise of the landlords that they would provide him a room in the reconstructed building to be put up after after demolition of the existing structure, with similar conveniences. Though the building was reconstructed, he was not provided with a room as agreed was the grievance espoused by the tenant for seeking appropriate directions from the court to compel the landlords to provide him a room. The court below after considering the issues involved and collecting a commission report as well, passed an order directing the landlords to provide room No.6 as marked by the R.P.No.1129/09 - 2 - commissioner in his report and plan. Questioning the propriety and correctness of that order, the tenant preferred the above writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This court, after hearing both sides, set aside the order of the court below (P7) with specific direction how the question of allotment of the room to the tenant has to be proceeded with. Further direction was also given that till determination of the fair rent, the court shall fix the reasonable rent to be paid by the tenant for occupation of the building and such rent shall be paid without default by the tenant. The court below was directed to dispose the proceedings expeditiously, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. That judgment was rendered on 18.9.2009. 2. The case canvassed for reviewing the judgment is that the landlords have let out many of the rooms in the reconstructed building even before the presentation of the writ petition. The building was constructed with financial assistance secured by way of a loan paying high rate of interest is highlighted to submit that only the room now available as vacant can be provided to the tenant. When the writ petition was considered, by inadvertence, it could not be R.P.No.1129/09 - 3 - brought to the notice of the court that many of the rooms had already been let out and the tenants so inducted are in occupation is the primary ground canvassed for reviewing the judgment. The reason set out for review deserve to be taken note of only for its rejection. While disposing of the writ petition, this court had taken note of that even in the counter affidavit filed by the landlords before the court below it had been stated that the tenant is welcome to take any room on rent on the basis of the compromise decree subject to payment of the present rate of rent. When that was the case canvassed by the landlords before the court below, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, no case was canvassed that the tenant could not be provided any room other than the two rooms facing the road in the reconstructed building which had been let out to other tenants. It was in that context direction was given to the court below to examine the question afresh and pass appropriate orders as to which room is to be allotted to the tenant with reference to the terms of the compromise entered by the parties. It is too late in the day for the petitioners/landlords to seek a review of the judgment canvassing a case that there was failure on their part to bring to the notice of this court that several other rooms had already been let out before R.P.No.1129/09 - 4 - filing of the writ petition. The review petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed with a direction to the court below to dispose the proceedings within the time limit as indicated earlier, in accordance with law. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE