IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 256 of 2003()
1. DR. K.P. SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KARAKUNNATH ALIKUTTY, S/O. AMMED HAJI,
... Respondent
2. KARAKUNNATH RASHEED, S/O. ALIKUTTY,
3. KARAKUNNATH SEENATH, D/O. ALIKUTTY,
4. KARAKUNNATH SAJITHA, D/O. ALIKUTTY,
5. KARAKUNNATH SHAKEELA, D/O. ALIKUTTY,
6. KARAKUNNATH MAHMUD, S/O. ALIKUTTY,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.BEHANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :08/07/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No.256 OF 2003
------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009
ORDER
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
This revision petition filed by the tenant is directed against
an order passed by the rent control appellate authority summarily
rejecting the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner tenant
against the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (2) (b) of
the Act. The revision petition is remaining defective on the
reason that service of notice is not completed on all the
respondents cum landlords who are co-owners.
2. Sri.P.A.Harish, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, the order of eviction
which was impugned in the appeal has been set aside by the
rent control court invoking the powers under clause (c) of sub
Section (2) of Section 11. In our opinion, in view of the order
passed by the rent control court under Section 11 (2)(c)
vacating the original order of eviction passed under Section 11
(2) (b), the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner itself has
RCR.No.256/2003 2
become unnecessary.
Accordingly, we close this RCR on the basis that the
revision petition itself has become unnecessary and infructuous.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk