IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 RCRev..No. 134 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.5/2008 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY , TRIVANDRUM RCP.92/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TRIVANDRUM (I.A.138/08) .................... REVISION PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- MAHEENKUNJU, S/O.MAHEEN PICHA T.C.54/330, KARAKKAMANDAPAM, NEMOM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SURESH M.B, S/O.BHASKARAN MANACATTUVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEHRU JUNCTION KAZHAKOOTTAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SURESH G, S/O.GOPALAN SURAYA BAHVAN, NEHRU JUNCTION KAZHAKOOTTAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 134 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Sri.M.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would fairly concede before us that the building, which is subject matter of the rent control proceedings, is already delivered over to the respondents/landlords petitioners in the RCP after dispossessing the revision petitioner. Sri.Sreekumar however insisted that we examine the RCR on its merits. According to him, the revision petitioner had a specific contention that the document of title relied on by the landlords, which was actually executed in favour of the landlords by the revision petitioner himself, is a sham document executed for securing a money transaction between the parties. Even if what Mr.Sreekumar says is correct, then also the remedy of his client lies not before the statutory authorities under the Rent Control Act but before a regular civil court. Now, as the building in question stands dispossessed, the rent control petition itself has virtually become infructuous. Hence, we are not inclined to RCR.No.134/2010 2 entertain this revision petition any longer. We dispose of the revision petition without examining the merit of the grounds. As regards the merits of the submissions made by Sri.Sreekumar, we will only observe that neither the judgment of the Appellate Authority nor our own present judgment will foreclose other remedies if any available to the revision petitioner before the regular civil court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk