IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 RCRev..No. 329 of 2008() ------------------------ ( RCA.NO.37/03 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD) REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------- M.SAHABUDHEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, THOTTAKKATTUTHARA, KODUVAYUR POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. SARASWATHI AMMA, W/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR, VANIYATHARA, KODUVAYUR POST - 678501 PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR, DOOR NO.1/292, TEA STALL, CHITTUR ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SIVADAS, S/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR, DOOR NO.1/292, TEA STALL, CHITTUR ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. MURUKADAS, S/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR, DOOR NO.1/292, TEA STALL, CHITTUR ROAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. LAKSHMANAN, S/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR, DEVI TRADERS, 386-B, PANKAJA MILL ROAD, OPP.PANKAJ MILL, RAMANATHAPURAM, COIMBATORE - 641045. 6. PREMA KUMARI, D/O.LATE RAMAN NAIR, VANIYATHARA, KODUVAYUR POST - 678501 PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. BHAGYA LAKSHMI, W/O.VIJAYAN, ARG ELECTRONIC AND HARDWARES SENGANNOOR, MAIN ROAD, RATHINAPURAM, COIMBATORE - 641027. 8. OMANA, D/O. LATE RAMAN NAIR C/O. LAKSHMANAN, DEVI TRADERS, 386-B, PANKAJA MILL ROAD, OPP.PANKAJ MILL, RAMANATHAPURAM, COIMBATORE - 641045. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No. 329 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for on the ground under Section 11(4)(3) ( tenant having possession of other buildings reasonably sufficient for the tenant's requirement in the same city or village) and under section 11(4)(4) ( reconstruction on the basis that building needs reconstruction). The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Section 11(4)(4), but declined eviction under Section 11(4)(3). Appeals were preferred by both the landlord and the tenant. Both the appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority. 2. The ground which is prominently raised in this revision petition is that after the appeals were dismissed, the 5th respondent tenant came to have possession of another building and that it is in that building that the respondents are presently carrying on the tea shop business which they were previously conducting in the petition schedule building. It is also urged that the tenants have ceased to occupy the building which is subject matter of the rent control petition RCR.No.329/08 2 and that they have become liable to be evicted under Section 11(4)(5) also. 3. Sri.O.Ramachandran Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us very strenuously and persuasively and requested that the RCR be admitted for the purpose of considering a remand of the matter to the trial court so as to enable the landlord petitioner to pursue the ground under Section 11(4)(3) and the additional ground under Section 11(4)(5) in view of the subsequent events. Notwithstanding his persuasions, we are of the view that if fresh grounds have become available in favour of the petitioner after the dismissal of the appeals, it is always open to the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings. We do not think that Section 15 will stand in the way of the petitioner instituting a fresh rent control petition in the light of the changed circumstances which have arisen subsequent to the dismissal of the appeals. With the above observation, the RCR will stand dismissed. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE sv. RCR.No.329/08 3