IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2009 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1931 RCRev..No. 145 of 2003() ------------------------ RCA.71/1998 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM RCP.2/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.BABU, MANOMOHANVILASOM, VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL VILLAGE. 2. SARASWATHY ROSY, MANOMOHANVILASOM, VALIYAKUNNU ATINGAL VILLAGE. 3. LILLY, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. SARASWATHY ROSY, MANOMOHANAVILASAM, CHITTATTUMKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZ TALUK. ( ADDL. 3RD PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.347/2009 DATED 2/3/2009) BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT/2DN PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- BABU, S/O. CHELLAMMA, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KADUVAYIL, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) FOR RESPNT. SMT.ASHA CHACKO FOR RESPONDENT THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.145 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of March, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The respondents in the rent control petition, against whom the owner landlord filed rent control petition for eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide own occupation, are the revision petitioners in this petition under Section 20 of the Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment have concurrently found that the landlord is entitled for order of eviction under both the grounds involved. One of the prominent contentions raised by the revision petitioners, the alleged tenants, was that they are Kudikidappukars. The issue of Kudikidappu was never referred by the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to the Land Tribunal. But, the revision petitioners filed O.A.No.26/1996 under Section 80B which was allowed by the Land Tribunal. The respondent landlord preferred A.A.No.23/2000. That A.A. was R.C.R.No.145/2009 2 dismissed for default by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority. The landlord, instead of filing an application for restoration, filed application for condonation of the delay caused in the matter of filing application for restoration. That was allowed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the A.A.was restored to file. Against the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, the revision petitioners came to this court filing O.P.No.30893/2002. This court by judgment in that O.P., set aside the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and directed the Land Reforms Appellate Authority to consider the interlocutory application filed by the respondent (I.A.No.50/2001) afresh after giving opportunity to both sides. This court suggested that it will be ideal if the respondent filed a regular application for restoration of A.A. itself. This court permitted both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contention regarding the restoration of the matter. Thus, A.A. No.23/2000 and I.A. No.50/2001 therein were relegated back to the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, In the meanwhile, the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed impugned judgment confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, clarifying as follows; R.C.R.No.145/2009 3 “The order of eviction shall be subjected to the finality of the findings on the question of kudikidappu in O.A.26/96 of the Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram ( O.A. relating to A.A. No.23/2000 of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.” 2. We have heard Sri.M.V.S.Nampoothiry, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned counsel for the respondent. We notice merit in the submissions of Sri.M.V.S.Nampoothiri that the appellate authority acted irregularly in confirming the eviction order subjecting the same to the final result of the proceedings pending before the Authorities under the Land Reforms Act. If it is ultimately found by the Authorities under the Land Reforms Act that the revision petitioners are kudikidappukars, the eviction order will necessarily have to be vacated. At the same time, having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under Section 20, wherein we are concerned with the legality, regularity and R.C.R.No.145/2009 4 propriety of the orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority, we do not find any warrant for setting aside those orders except to the extent those orders do not satisfactorily provide for the final result of the proceedings pending before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the Rent Control Petition can be disposed of issuing the following directions; i). The Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, which is presently in seizin of A.A.No.23/2000, I.A.50/2001 and I.As subsequently filed by the respondent in A.A. No.23/2000, will hear both the parties and finally dispose of the I.As as well as the A.A. itself within three months of receiving a copy of this judgment. While disposing of the I.As as well as the A.A., that authority will comply with the directions of this court in the Judgment in O.P. No.30893/2002. ii). The Principal Munsiff Court, Attingal, which R.C.R.No.145/2009 5 is to execute the eviction orders passed under the Rent Control Act, is directed to defer the proceedings for execution of the eviction order in R.C.P No. 2/1997 till such time as the judgment in A.A. No.23/2001 on the file of the Thiruvananthapuram Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, is produced before that court. It is needless to mention that orders in execution will be passed by the Munsiff Court only on the basis of the findings in the above judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE dpk