IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 388 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.9/2009 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE. RCP.131/2007 of III ADDL MUNSIFF COURT, ,KOZHIKODE-I .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE CALICUT ENGINEERING AGENCIES, A FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.E.R.ANTONY, S/O.A.RAPAYYI HAVING ITS OFFICE AT DOOR NO.16/938, KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT-2, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ THE MALABAR AND PIONEER HOSIORY PRIVATE LIMITED, KALLAI ROAD CALICUT-2, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SRI.V.K.ERADI AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN MOOSAD. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 389 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... R.C.R.NOs.388 & 389 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011. O R D E R Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The tenants are the revision petitioner in these revisions. The rent control court and the appellate authority have concurrently ordered eviction on the grounds under subsections (3) and (8) of Section 11 against the revision petitioner. In these revisions, the above eviction orders are assailed on various grounds. Apart from that, in RCR No.388/2011 the revision petitioner has filed I.A.No.2369/2011 seeking admittance of three documents - Annexures A, B and C as additional evidence on the side of the tenant. 2. Even though the respondent/landlord has been served with notice, for the reasons best known to them they have not chosen to enter appearance before this Court even though the proceedings were very hotly contested before the rent control court and the appellate authority. According to us, it is not necessary to re examine the merits of the various grounds which have been raised in these revisions against the R.C.R.NOs.388 & 389 OF 2011 : 2 : eviction orders passed, as we find that there is at least one infirmity about the eviction order passed. As already indicated, the statutory authorities have passed a combined eviction order on the grounds under subsections (3) and (8) of Section 11. It is trite by now that subsections (3) and (8) operate in different fields and a combined order cannot be passed as these two evictions grounds are mutually exclusive. It appears that the above aspect of the matter was not noticed by the appellate authority. 3. We are therefore inclined to direct the appellate authority to consider the above aspect of the matter. As the matter is being sent back to the appellate authority, we feel that the learned authority can be directed to consider the acceptance of Annexures A,B and C produced along with I.A.No.2369/11 as additional items of evidence on the side of the revision petitioner. The result of the above discussion therefore is as follows: The judgments of the appellate authority which are impugned in these revisions are set aside and the rent control appeals are remanded to the Third Additional District Judge and the Appellate Authority Kozhikode. The learned appellate R.C.R.NOs.388 & 389 OF 2011 : 3 : authority is directed to consider the acceptance of the three documents Annexures A, B and C produced along with I.A.No.2369/11. The learned appellate authority will also consider the question whether a combined order under subsections (3) and (8) of Section 11 is sustainable in law. Revised judgment will be passed by the appellate authority in both the RCAs in accordance with law after hearing both sides at the earliest and at any rate within a period of two months of receiving a copy of this judgment. The appellate authority will issue notice to both sides regarding posting of the revisions either directly or through their advocate before the appellate authority. Registry will return Annexures A,B and C to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner so as to enable him to produce them before the appellate authority. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL, JUDGE. cl