IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ
PRAKASAN C.K., SEENA MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
BRIJILA T.P., MUKUNDAN P.P, V.K. DHARMARJAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging an order in a stay application. (Para 1) |
| 2. maintainability of revision petitions. (Para 2) |
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This revision petition is filed essentially challenging an order in an application for stay. The Rent Control Appellate Authority passed an order granting stay on a condition that the tenant has to deposit the entire arrears of rent, and the same is challenged in this revision petition.
2. The Rent Control Appellate Authority is yet to decide the issue related to the jurisdiction, about which the Rent Controller had apparently assumed jurisdiction, overruling the objection of the tenant in regard to the maintainability. Anyway, that question is a matter to be decided in appeal. Now the question is whether the revision petition is maintainable. 3. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable, as the impugned order has not attained finality and does not by itself result in the termination of the proceedings. It is only a discretionary order passed on an application for stay.
We find that there is a formidable objection on the side of the landlord. We are not going to the merits of the challenge.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.