ARAVINDAKSHAN Vs. RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions have been filed against the common order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in R. C. A. Nos. 321/90,322/90,323/90,2/91 and 5/91 dated 26th August, 1993. In C. R. P. Nos. 273/94,302/94, 305/94 and 343/94 the landlord of the buildings sought to be evicted is the common revision petitioner. C. R. P. NO. 261/95 has been filed by the tenant against the order in R. C. A. No. 322/90.

(2.) THE landlord filed the applications for eviction of buildings involved in these cases under S. 11 (4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act' ). All the eviction petitions were filed through a power-of-attorney holder. THE Rent Control Court ordered eviction on the ground of reconstruction under S. 11 (4) (iv ). THE objection raised by the tenants that the power-of-attorney holder was not authorised to file the petitions was rejected by the Rent Control Court . THE appeals were filed by the tenants before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. THE Rent Control Appellate authority confirmed the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under S. 11 (4) (iv) of the Act, but the applications were dismissed on the ground that the power-of-attorney holder was not authorised to file the applications for eviction. It is against the said common appellate order the present revision petitions have been filed by the landlord.

(3.) THE landlord has filed C. R. P. No. 343/94 against the order in R. C. A. No. 322/ 90 arising from R. C. P. No. 9/89. Since the building has been surrendered to the landlord on accepting his contentions by the tenant we do not propose to examine those contentions. THEre is no dispute on this point between the parties. Hence the revision petition, C. R. P. No. 343/94, is allowed.