IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 RCRev..No. 324 of 2008() ------------------------ RCA.61/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY RCP.118/1986 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT/2ND PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- KALLALATHIL VEANNARAKKAL SREEDHARAN, TALAP, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & OTHER PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M.P.SAKKEENA,W/O.LATE P.P.MUHAMMEDKUNHI MEETHALAPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, JAYANTHI ROAD,' PALLIKUNNU AMSOM, CHALAD DESOM, AND POST,KANNUR-14 2. M.P.JAMEELA, D/O. LATE P.P.MUHAMMEDKUNHI -DO- 3. M.P.SUHARABI, DO. 4. M.P.HARIS, BUSINESS, -DO- 5. M.P.SUBAIDA, -DO- 6. M.P.MAHAMOOD,BUSINESS -DO- 7. M.P.ABDUL SHUKKOOR, BUSINESS, -DO- 8. KALLALATHIL VANNARAKKAL NARAYANAN, S/O. KELAN, BUSINESS, TALAP,KANNUR. 9. MRS.K.PREMA LAKSHMANAN, W/O. LATE LAKSHMANAN, TALAP, KANNUR. 10. LATHEESH, BUSINESS -DO- 11. NISHI, -DO- 12. SHEERA,-DO- 13. DHAYAROTH AMBUJAKSHI, W/O. LATE SEKHARAN, RESIDING AT KALLATHIL HOUSE, P.O. PALLIKKUNNU, TALAP, KANNUR - 7. 14. K.SARALA, D/O.SEKHARAN, RESIDING AT -DO- 15. K.SHYAMALA, D/O.SEKHARAN -DO- 16. K.SHEENA, D/O. SEKHARAN, -DO- 17. K.REESHA, D/O. SEKHARAN, -DO- 18. K.LALITHA, D/O.SEKHARAN, -DO- THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... R.C.R. No.324 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have gone through the impugned orders passed by the Rent Control Court and the appellate court dismissing the RCP filed by the land owners. It is seen from the orders that the tenant raised a specific objection that the property leased was only land and not building as claimed by the petitioner herein. In the first round, this court remanded the matter for decision by the Rent Control Court in C.R.P. No.132/1992. It is seen that pursuant to judgment, the Rent Control Court considered the evidence adduced by the parties and it was found that the lease agreement between the original owners and the tenant was for lease of land required for the bunk shop. The court has taken specific note of the fact that what was leased out under the agreement was land and not building. The claim of the tenant was that he constructed the bunk shop which stands proved by evidence and therefore, courts below 2 found that the tenant is entitled to protection under Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders rendered based on evidence. This revision is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms