IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1221 of 2009(N)
1. CHANDRAVATHI,W/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA,
... Petitioner
2. SUNITHRA, D/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA,
3. SUNANDA,D/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA,
4. SHIVANANDA,D/O.LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA,
5. RAVIPRAKASHA,S/O. LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA,
6. SUMATHI,D/O. LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA,
7. MANODATH, S/O. LATE ANANTHA ACHARYA,
8. THARANATHA ACHARYA, S/O.NEELAYYA,
9. SANTHA KUMAR (MINOR, AGED 10 YEARS),
10. PRATHISH KUMAR (MINOR, AGED 6 YEARS),
Vs
1. ASMATH, W/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
... Respondent
2. MOHAMMED HANEEFA,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
3. MOHAMMED ASLAM,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
4. SMT.FIRDOS,D/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
5. MOHAMMED AFSAL,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
6. MOHAMMED NIZAM,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
7. MOHAMMAD SAFEA,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
8. MOHAMMED JAVID,S/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
9. GULAM MUHAMMED,S/O.MOHAMMED SHERIF,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.I.DAVIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :15/12/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------
R.P.No.1221 OF 2009 in
WPC No.34571 of 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The petitioners in the writ petition seek review of our
judgment dismissing the writ petition holding that there is no
warrant for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court
under Article 227 for interfering with Ext.P6 which was under
challenge in the writ petition. By Ext.P6, Ext.P4 order of the
Execution Court directing delivery, was approved by the District
Judge in a proceeding under Section 14 of Act 2 Act of 1965.
The contention, which was prominently raised in the writ petition,
was that by virtue of Ext.P2 order passed by the local Land
Tribunal in S.M. No.80/1992, the landlords petitioners in the RCP
ceased to have title over the land upon which the petition
schedule building is situated and hence directing them to carry
out reconstruction and thereafter to re -induct the petitioners into
the reconstructed building subject to the petitioners’ liability to
RP.No.1221/2009 2
pay fair rent will be meaningless. The contention was that the
landlords/decree holders will not be able to carry out the
reconstruction in the teeth of Ext.P2 order and objections from
the part of the beneficiary under Ext.P2 order; the rival claimant
to title. The review is presently sought on the observations in
the penultimate paragraph of our judgment, which is quoted as
follows;
“As for the apprehension voiced by Sri.Sohan
that the respondents will not be able to carry out
reconstruction pursuant to the directions in Ext.P1
judgment, we are of the view that Ext.P1 is binding
on the respondents and it is their obligation to
ensure that the reconstruction is carried out in
terms of the directions in Ext.P1. If they do not
carry out reconstructions within the time stipulated
under Ext.P1, the Rent Control Court has necessary
powers in terms of the second proviso to Section
11(4)(iv) to issue appropriate direction regarding
the reconstruction of the building and to give effect
to the order of eviction confirmed under Ext.P1 by
RP.No.1221/2009 3
passing effective orders(If it comes to that, even
orders permitting the petitioners to carry out the
reconstructions upon suitable terms).”
2. Referring to those observations, Sri.P.I.Davis, learned
counsel for the review petitioners would submit that those
observations notwithstanding, due to supervening impossibility,
which has presently occurred, the tenants will be on the street
since the petitioners in the RCP/decree holders will not be be able
to carry out reconstruction. The learned counsel referred to the
judgment of this court in Shanmughan v. Rohini (1989 (2) KLT
95) and submitted that apart from Ext.P2, the extension of the
Kerala Building Rules to the area where the building is situated
making it obligatory for a person who constructs a building to
conform to the Building Rules is a subsequent event which would
render the reconstruction ordered by the various authorities
under the Rent Control Act impossible of being carried out.
3. Resisting all the submissions of Sri. P.I.Davis,
Smt.Prabha R.Menon, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that there is absolutely no warrant for invoking this
RP.No.1221/2009 4
court’s jurisdiction for reviewing its own order and judgment in
the present case. The learned counsel reminded us of the well
defined contours of the jurisdiction for review under Order 47
Rule 1 of the CPC. Smt.Prabha would also submit that the
landlord has already obtained exemption order from the
Government regarding the proposed reconstruction.
4. We have anxiously considered the submissions addressed
at the Bar. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the
respondents/landlords, that there is no warrant for invoking this
court’s jurisdiction for review in this case. In fact the
apprehensions voiced by the petitioners in this review petition
were voiced in the writ petition also and in our view our
observations quoted herein above take care of those
apprehensions. As for the submissions of Sri.Davis with
reference the judgment of this court in Shanmughan’s case
(supra), we are not inclined to accept those submissions in view
of Smt.Prabha’s submission that exemption order has already
been obtained by the respondents.
5. In the above circumstances, the Review Petition will
stand dismissed. However, considering the last request of
RP.No.1221/2009 5
Sri.Davis that some more time be granted to the petitioners to
surrender the premises, we are of the view that time can be
granted (despite very stiff opposition from Sri.Prabha R.Menon)
till 15/1/2010 on condition that the first revision petitioner on
her behalf and representing the other petitioners files an affidavit
within seven days from today before the Execution Court
undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the building in question
to the respondents on or before 15/1/2010.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
dpk