Prasanth vs Pochappan Cherumanatil Umesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 21452 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                              &
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                  R.C.REV.NO. 167 OF 2019
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2018 IN R.C.A.NO.43 OF
2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE-I), THALASSERY AND ORDER DATED 28.01.2015
     IN R.C.P.NO.85 OF 2014 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT
                (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF), KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

         PRASANTH
         AGED 54 YEARS
         S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, MURALEEKRISHNA, MANHAPALAM,
         PADANNAPALAM ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670014.
         BY ADVS.
         P.U.SHAILAJAN
         SRI.M.SURESH KUMAR


RESPONDENT/S:

         POCHAPPAN CHERUMANATIL UMESH
         AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, DEVI PRABHA,
         RED CROSS ROAD, PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT,
         PIN-670001.
         BY ADVS.
         SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
         SMT.E.S.SONI
         SMT.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR


     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2
R.C.Rev.No. 167 of 2019




                              ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.85 of

2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff),

Kannur, a petition filed by the respondent herein-landlord

under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenant from the

petition scheduled room. The Rent Control Court tried

R.C.P.No. 85 of 2014 along with the connected matters. By a

common order dated 28.01.2015, the Rent Control Court

granted an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act

and the tenant was directed to surrender vacant possession of

the petition scheduled room to the landlord, within a period of

one month. The tenant filed R.C.A.No.43 of 2015 before the

Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl.District Judge-I),

Thalassery under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act, challenging the

order of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court in

R.C.P.No.85 of 2014. That appeal ended in dismissal by the

R.C.Rev.No. 167 of 2019

judgment dated 24.10.2018, which is under challenge in this

Rent Control Revision filed under Section 20 of the Act.

2. On 21.05.2019, when this Rent Control Revision

came up for admission, this Court issued notice to the

respondent. In I.A.No.1 of 2019, this Court granted interim

stay of the execution of the order in R.C.P.No.85 of 2014 of

the Rent Control Court for a period of two months. The said

interim order was extended from time to time. On

07.10.2021, when this matter came up for consideration, this

Court extended the interim order for a period of three months

on condition that the petitioner-tenant shall pay arrears of

rent as on that date, within a period of one month, and shall

continue to pay monthly rent for the subsequent period,

without any default, during the pendency of this revision.

3. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration,

it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant

and also the learned counsel for respondent-landlord that the

matter has already been settled between the parties and the

tenant has given vacant possession of the petition scheduled

R.C.Rev.No. 167 of 2019

room to the landlord.

In such circumstances, the Rent Control Revision is

disposed of recording the fact that the tenant has already

vacated the petition scheduled room.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr