IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 RCREV..NO. 204 OF 2008(E) ------------------------------ RCA.4/2006 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ( I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT), ERNAKULAM RCP.214/2004 OF RENT CONTROL COURT( III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------------- ANTO DAVIS, S/O. K.A.DAVIS AGED 39, VANITHA JWELLERY, CHAMBER ROAD ALUMKADAVU, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM SRI.ANTO THOMAS SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.P.SALIM, S/O.LATE HAMEED AGED 48, RAZEENA MANSION, ST.ALBERTS HIGH SCHOOL LANE, ERNAKULAM 2. P.T.GAFOOR, S/O.LATE HAMEED,AGED 49 YEARS,RAZEENA MANSION, ST.ALBERTS HIGH SCHOOL LANE, ERNAKULAM 3. T.P.RASEENA,D/O.LATE HAMEED, RAZEENA MANSION,ST.ALBERTS HIGH SCHOOL LANE, ERNAKULAM 4. T.P.SIRAJ,S/O.LATE HAMEED, RAZEENA MANSION,ST.ALBERTS HIGH SCHOOL LANE, ERNAKULAM 5. T.P.SAJANA, D/O.LATE HAMEED, RAZEENA MANSION, ST.ALBERTS HIGH SCHOOL LANE, ERNAKULAM 6. T.P.ZAINABA, W/O.LATE HAMEED, RAZEENA MANSION, ST.ALBERTS HIGH SCHOOL LANE, ERNAKULAM SRI.K.C.CHARLES FOR CAVEATOR THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Order on I.A.No.1881/08 In RCR 204/08 25-2-2011 Dismissed Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. Sd/-N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. [true copy] P.S.to Judge. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R. NO. 204 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011. O R D E R PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. Sri. V. Santharam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner draws our attention to Annexure A1 and submits in view of Annexure A1 order passed by the Munsiff Court upholding the claim alleged by the revision petitioner's mother Smt. Leela Davis, the RCR be allowed. 2. We have gone through Annexure A1. We find that under Annexure A1 the learned Munsiff has upheld the claim in respect of the premises which are the subject matter of the RCR and held that these premises were leased out by the landlord to the revision petitioner's mother and that some other premises were leased out to the R.C.R. NO. 204 OF 2008 -:2:- revision petitioner. Annexure A1 has not attained finality. Mr.SanthaRam himself informed us that against Annexure A1, Annexure A2 appeal is pending before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. According to us, so long as Annexure A1 is in currency, the eviction order which is impugned in this revision cannot be executed by the respondent/decree holder in the RCP. We are therefore not inclined to examine the merits of the grounds raised in this RCR against the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We close the R.C.R. without examining the merits of the grounds in view of Annexure A1. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/-