Mohammed H.Nizarudeen vs B.Indira Devi on 22 October, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RCRev..No. 329 of 2010()


1. MOHAMMED H.NIZARUDEEN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. B.INDIRA DEVI , AGED 81 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :22/10/2010

 O R D E R
              PIUS C KURIAKOSE & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                          R.C.R.. NO. 329 OF 2010
                       = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
           DATED THIS, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010.

                                  O R D E R

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

Tenant is in revision, challenging the judgment of the Rent Control

Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, rendered in R.C.A. 48 of 2006,

confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court,

Thiruvananthapuram, in R.C.P.45 of 2005.

2. It is conceded by both sides before us that the revision petitioner

has vacated the petition schedule premises. Learned counsel Sri. G. S.

Reghunath, appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that though it is

true that the tenant has vacated the building, we may decide the correctness

of the finding entered by the statutory authority regarding the rent kept in

arrears. According to us, it is unnecessary to do so. The statutory

authorities in these proceedings were concerned essentially with the

question of evicting the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent.

Now that the revision petitioner has vacated the building in obedience to

the order of eviction passed against him, the question as to whether the

finding entered by the statutory authority regarding the rent in arrears is

correct or no longer germane to these proceedings. The Rent Control

RCR 329/2010 2

Court is essentially a court for eviction. Proceedings under Section 11 is

essentially for eviction and not for recovery of arrears of rent. In that view

of the matter, we close this Rent Control Revision Petition. We make it

clear that in the event of the respondent filing a suit for recovery of arrears

of rent, the court which comes to be in seizin of that suit will not be unduly

influenced by the finding, if any rendered by the learned Appellate

Authority and the Rent Control Court regarding the rent actually in arrears.

The R.C.R. is closed.

PIUS C KURIAKOSE,
(JUDGE)

P.S. GOPINATHAN,
(JUDGE)
knc/-