High Court Kerala High Court

I.N.T.U.C. Mundakkayam … vs V.S.Mraiam Beevi on 14 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
I.N.T.U.C. Mundakkayam … vs V.S.Mraiam Beevi on 14 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RCRev..No. 266 of 2010()


1. I.N.T.U.C. MUNDAKKAYAM REPRESENTED BY
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THIRUKKOCHI THOTTAM THOZHILALI UNION
3. HEAD LOAD TIMBER GENERAL WORKERS

                        Vs



1. V.S.MRAIAM BEEVI, W/O.LATE MUSTHAFA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ALEYAMMA JOSEPH,W/O.LATE P.D.JOSEPH,

3. MARITTA JOSEPH, W/O.DINESH MURIKKAN,

4. MERRY JOSEPH, W/O.LATE JOSEPH SCARIA,

5. P.J.CHACKO, S/O.LATE P.D.JOSEPH,

6. P.J.DOMINIC, S/O.LATE P.D.JOSEPH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.A.HASSAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :14/09/2010

 O R D E R
           PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

                       ------------------------
                      R.C.R.No. 266 OF 2010
                       ------------------------

          Dated this the 14th day of September, 2010

                             O R D E R

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would very

fairly bring to our notice the judgment of this Court in R.C.R.

No.225/2010 and connected cases. He submitted that those

judgments are in respect of similar orders passed in respect of

other portions of the larger building, a part of which only is the

building which is subject matter of the present RCR. He agreed

that in the teeth of those judgments, it will be difficult for the

revision petitioners to successfully assail the impugned judgment.

He only requested that the time be granted till 15/11/2010, so

that the revision petitioners can continue in possession till the

Panchayat elections are over.

2. We feel that the request of the learned counsel for the

revision petitioners is reasonable. In view of the various reasons

RCR.No.266/2010 2

stated by this Court in the common judgment in R.C.R.

No.225/2010 & connected cases, we do not find any illegality,

irregularity or impropriety, as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2

of 1965, about the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which is

impugned in this revision.

3. The RCR will stand dismissed. However, the Execution

Court is directed not to order and effect delivery of the building in

question till 15/11/2010 subject to the following conditions;

The Secretary of the first revision petitioner

representing the first revision petitioner and the

other two revision petitioners will file an affidavit

before the Execution Court within three weeks

from today undertaking to give peaceful surrender

of the building in question to the first respondent

landlady on or before 15/11/2010 and undertaking

further that arrears of rent if any found in respect

of the building will be discharged within one month

and also that occupational charges at the current

rent rate will also be paid till such time as the

building is surrendered.

RCR.No.266/2010 3

We make it clear that the revision petitioners will get benefit

of time granted as above, only if the affidavit as directed above is

filed on time.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

dpk

RCR.No.266/2010 4

RCR.No.266/2010 5

RCR.No.266/2010 6

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

RCR.No.266/2010 7

dpk