Kerala High Court
Kevin Paul Neero vs Roy Isac on 23 September, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
RCREV. NO. 131 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2024 IN RCA NO.100
OF 2020 OF IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED 15.01.2020 IN RCP NO.9 OF 2018 OF RENT
CONTROLLER,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/TO BE IMPLEADED AS
ADDL.RESPONDENT IN RCP:
KEVIN PAUL NEERO
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O NEEROLIPPADAM VEETTIL POULOSE, RESIDING AT
NEEROLIPPADAM VEETTIL, MUSEUM CROSS ROAD,
CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHEMBUKKAVU POST,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680002
BY ADVS.
K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
LATHA PRABHAKARAN
SAINA MARIYAM BABY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS-PETITIONER AND
RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN RCP:
1 ROY ISAC
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O IMMATTY ISAC, ST.MARY'S STREET, KUTTUR
VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680013
2 N.A.DAVY
AGED 76 YEARS
H.NO.14, NEEROLIPAN HOUSE, PRIYADARSINI NAGAR,
PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR, PIN - 680005
2024:KER:72881
RC Revisions 131 & 139/24
2
3 N.A.THIMOTHY
AGED 74 YEARS
NEEROLI VILLA, NEEROLIPAN HOUSE, UDAYA NAGAR,
MAILIPPADAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680005
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.09.2024, ALONG WITH RCRev.NO.139/2024, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:72881
RC Revisions 131 & 139/24
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 1ST ASWINA, 1946
RCREV. NO. 139 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2024 IN RCA NO.101
OF 2020 OF IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THRISSUR ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT
DATED 15.1.2020 IN RCP NO.9 OF 2018 OF RENT
CONTROLLER,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT SOUGHT FOR IMPLEADED AS
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT:
KEVIN PAUL NEERO
AGED 46 YEARS
PES/O NEEROLIPPADAM VEETTIL POULOSE, RESIDING AT
NEEROLIPPADAM VEETTIL, MUSEUM CROSS ROAD,
CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE AND DESOM, CHEMBUKKAVU POST,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680002
BY ADVS.
K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
LATHA PRABHAKARAN
SAINA MARIYAM BABY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER&
RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 ROY ISAC
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O IMMATTY ISAC, ST.MARY'S STREET, KUTTUR
VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680013
2024:KER:72881
RC Revisions 131 & 139/24
4
2 N.A.DAVY
AGED 76 YEARS
H.NO.14, NEEROLIPPADAN HOUSE, PRIYADARSINI
NAGAR, PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR, PIN - 680005
3 N.A.THIMOTHY
AGED 74 YEARS
NEEROLI VILLA, NEEROLIPPADAN HOUSE, UDAYA NAGAR,
MAILIPPADAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680005.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.09.2024, ALONG WITH RCRev.131/2024, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:72881
RC Revisions 131 & 139/24
5
AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.
------------------------------------
R.C.Revision Nos.131 & 139 of 2024
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2024
ORDER
Easwaran S.,J.
These two revision petitions arise from a common judgment
dated 4.3.2024 in R.C.A Nos.100/2020 and 101/2020, respectively,
on the files of the IV Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Thrissur. Landlord instituted R.C.P. No.9/2018 before the Rent
Controller, Thrissur under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction of the 2nd and
3rd respondents herein. The Rent Controller, Thrissur by order
dated 15.1.2020 allowed the application and granted the landlord/
1st respondent an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The defence set up by
the tenants was that the building was taken on lease by the
grandfather of the 2nd and 3rd respondents from the grandfather of
the petitioner-landlord prior to 1940 and hence, they cannot be
evicted from the petition schedule property, in view of sub-Section
2024:KER:72881
RC Revisions 131 & 139/24
(17) of Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1965. While the rent control petition was pending, the revision
petitioner filed I.A.No.2/2020 in R.C.P No.9/2018 to implead him
in the R.C.P proceedings. The interlocutory application was filed
only on 14.1.2020 after the rent control court had taken up the rent
control petition for orders on 10.1.2020. On 15.1.2020, the rent
control court passed order in I.A.No.2/2020, which reads as follows:
"R.C.P is allowed. Hence, this petition is dismissed."
2. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the application for
impleading (I.A.No.2/2020 in R.C.P No.9/2018) and against the
final order in R.C.P No.9/2018, the revision petitioner approached
the IV Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur with
R.C.A Nos.100/2020 and 101/2020, respectively, which were
dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide the impugned common
judgment dated 4.3.2024. It is challenging these orders/judgments
the revision petitioner has approached this Court in these revision
petitions.
3. We have heard Sri.K.M.Jamaludheen, the learned
counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
2024:KER:72881
RC Revisions 131 & 139/24
4. Admittedly, the revision petitioner is not in occupation
of the tenanted premises. Respondents 2 and 3 are tenants and they
were paying rent to the landlord. Nowhere in the application, it was
pleaded nor it was proved that the revision petitioner had paid rent
to the landlord at any point of time, thus he could prove that there
exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the revision petitioner
and the 1st respondent-landlord. The original tenants were duly
represented before the rent control court and contested the case.
Pertinently, the order passed by the appellate authority is
dated 4.3.2024. It is also not clear as to whether the original order
passed by the rent control court was assailed before the appellate
authority by the tenants, who were in possession of the building.
However, on a specific query made to the learned counsel appearing
for the revision petitioner, we are informed that the original tenants
have independently challenged the proceedings before the rent
control appellate authority. Be that as it may, when admittedly the
revision petitioner is not in possession of the tenanted premises, we
do not see any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the
appellate authority rejecting the appeals preferred by the revision
2024:KER:72881
RC Revisions 131 & 139/24
petitioner. In fact, we are in full agreement with the finding
rendered by the appellate authority that the revision petitioner is not
a person aggrieved by the order of the rent controller entitling him
to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Accordingly, we decline to entertain
these revision petitions and the same stand dismissed. No order as
to costs.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
jg
