IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 134 of 2010()
1. MAHEENKUNJU, S/O.MAHEEN PICHA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SURESH M.B, S/O.BHASKARAN
... Respondent
2. SURESH G, S/O.GOPALAN
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :22/07/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No. 134 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Sri.M.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, would fairly concede before us that the building, which
is subject matter of the rent control proceedings, is already
delivered over to the respondents/landlords petitioners in the RCP
after dispossessing the revision petitioner. Sri.Sreekumar
however insisted that we examine the RCR on its merits.
According to him, the revision petitioner had a specific contention
that the document of title relied on by the landlords, which was
actually executed in favour of the landlords by the revision
petitioner himself, is a sham document executed for securing a
money transaction between the parties. Even if what
Mr.Sreekumar says is correct, then also the remedy of his client
lies not before the statutory authorities under the Rent Control
Act but before a regular civil court. Now, as the building in
question stands dispossessed, the rent control petition itself has
virtually become infructuous. Hence, we are not inclined to
RCR.No.134/2010 2
entertain this revision petition any longer.
We dispose of the revision petition without examining the
merit of the grounds. As regards the merits of the submissions
made by Sri.Sreekumar, we will only observe that neither the
judgment of the Appellate Authority nor our own present
judgment will foreclose other remedies if any available to the
revision petitioner before the regular civil court.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
dpk