IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 RCRev..No. 68 of 2003(E) ----------------------- RCA.66/1994 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.74/1993 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TVM .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------- RADHA DEVI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PANDALA, RESIDING AT SIVODAYAM, T.F.27/756, ATHANI LANE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) SMT.SHIRMILA. C.S. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/CR.PETITIONER: --------------- 1. THOMAS FRANCIS, PROPRIETOR, PAPPACHAN AUTO WORKS, T.F.27/947, WARD NO.27, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(*DIED) *ADDL.R2 TO 7 IMPLEADED: ADDL.R2 THOMAS JACOB, S/O.THOMAS FRANCIS, SELIN MOTORS, KANNAMMULA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R3 THOMAS ALBERT, -DO- ADDL.R4. THOMAS AROGYAM, -DO- ADDL.R5 THOMAS EDISON, -DO- (*IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 TO 5 , AS PER ORDER DT.13.10.09 IN I.A.2566/09) ADDL.R6 MABLE THOMAS,T.C.27/2067, VASANTHA HOUSE, KURISHADY LANE,STATUE ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.R7 LILLYKUTTY, LILLY HOUSE, KANJIRAMKULAM, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (*IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 & 7 , AS PER ORDER DT.13.10.09 IN I.A.2916/09) ..2 RCR.68/03 2 ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR ADDL.R2 TO 7 SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR FOR ADDL.R2 TO 7 SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR FOR ADDL.R2 TO 7 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. C. R. No.68 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J It was reported to us by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that after the impugned judgment was passed by the Appellate Authority, ownership over the building in question was conveyed by the landlady to a third party. Last time Smt.Suhara representing for the counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions. She submitted today that she has not been able to get instructions so far. We do not find any reason why the submission which was made before us by the learned counsel for the respondents should R. C. R. No.68 of 2003 -2- not be accepted. Accepting the above submission, we close the RCR. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-