2025:KER:24738 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 RP NO. 313 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2024 IN RCRev. NO.125 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO 3 IN RCR: RINU E AGED 36 YEARS S/O RAJAN (LATE), VALIYAPARAMBATH, NADAKKUTHAZHAAMSON, PUTHURDESOM PO, NUT STREET, VATAKARA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104 BY ADV NABIL KHADER RESPONDENT S / REVISIONS PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT 2 & 4 IN RCR : 1 SUSHAMA, D/O RAJAMMA, PUTHIYAVEETIL, CHAVASSERY PO IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670702. 2 ANITHA E, W/O RAJAN (LATE) VALIYAPARAMBATH, NADAKKUTHAZHAAMSON, PUTHURDESOM PO, NUT STREET, VATAKARA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE,PIN – 673104. 3 SINU E., S/O RAJAN (LATE), VALIYAPARAMBATH, NADAKKUTHAZHAAMSON, PUTHURDESOM PO, NUT STREET, VATAKARA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE,PIN – 673104. SRI SHYAM PADMAN SR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP No.313/2025 IN RC.Rev.No.125/2023 2 2025:KER:24738 AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- RP. No.313 OF 2025 in RC.Rev.No.125 OF 2023 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2025 ORDER Amit Rawal , J. The rent petition RCP.No.22/2018 was filed by Sushama, daughter of Rajamma against the tenant Rajan Valiyaparambath. He appeared and contested the matter on merits before the Rent Controller. Aforementioned rent petition was decided in favour of the landlord vide judgment dated 31.01.2022. However, before the appeal could be filed, the tenant died and the appeal was filed by all the legal heirs i.e. .Anitha E., Rinu E. and Sinu E. The appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide judgment dated 27.03.2023 and the landlord came before this Court in the revision petition with the following respondents in the memo of parties: “1. RAJAN VALIYAPARAMBATH, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.APPUNNI, GRIHALAKSHMI HOUSE, NADAKKUTHAZHA, PUTHUR, P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARAA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673104 (DIED). 2. ANITHA E, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O RAJAN (LATE) VALIYAPARAMBATH, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, RP No.313/2025 IN RC.Rev.No.125/2023 3 2025:KER:24738 P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673104. 3. RINU E, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O RAJAN (LATE) VALIYAPARAMBATH, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM,PUTHUR DESOM, P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673104 4. SINU.E, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O RAJAN (LATE) VALIYAPARAMBATH, NADAKKUTHAZHA AMSOM, PUTHUR DESOM, P.O. NUT STREET, VATAKARA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673104 “ 2. In RCRev.No.125/2023, Anita had appeared through counsel Sri.R.Parthasarathy and Sri.B.Krishnan, but both Rinu and Sinu did not appear. Now, the elder son, Rinu.E has moved an application that he had not been served notice in the revision petition. The fact remains that one of the legal heirs of the landlord i.e. Rajan, was represented by Anita E. This Court set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority but at that stage, the counsel representing the tenant sought six(6) months’ time for vacating the premises, therefore the following directions were issued: “(i) The tenant shall clear the arrears of rent. (ii) The tenant shall continue to pay the rent at every month against the valuable receipts. (iii) Tenant shall file an undertaking before the Executing Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order to vacate the premises on or before 08.04.2025. (iv) In case of two defaults in payment of monthly rent, the RP No.313/2025 IN RC.Rev.No.125/2023 4 2025:KER:24738 landlord shall be entitled to seek the ejectment before the expiry of six months.” 3. In the review petition, it is contended that the son Rinu E. was never represented, therefore, the direction to vacate the premises cannot be made. Since, there was no representation, the statement to vacate the premises could not have been made by the other legal heirs. 4. We are afraid that the aforementioned contention cannot be accepted in view of the settled law that in case application was filed by all the legal heirs and though was allowed, but if one of the legal heirs is representing the tenant/other LRs, it amounts to the representation of all the legal heirs owing to the common interest. Even otherwise, the notice sent by this Court on him returned with report, ‘left India’, which means that he was never in occupation of the premises. Now it is an attempt to overcome the undertaking given by Anita, also an attempt to overreach the order of this Court. Review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE Sd/- EASWARAN S., JUDGE ACR