This writ appeal (W.A. No.848 of 2016) is directed against the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 38105/2015 and 10898/2016. The appellant Uma Padiyar House held a city route permit Aluva-Konthuruthy originally issued in 1997 and renewed periodically. The appellant sought renewal of the regular permit and replacement of the vehicle on the same route; both applications were considered together by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) Ernakulam and were granted subject to government dues clearance. A rival operator (1st respondent) challenged Exhibit P8 in the writ petition contending the renewal and replacement could not be considered simultaneously, and that the permit ceases to exist when the vehicle is 15 years old. The writ court quashed Exhibit P8, relying on the decision in Usman v. RTA Malappuram. The appellant contended these views were misapplied and relied on decisions including Narayanan, Aboobacker and Krishna Das to argue that renewal could proceed with replacement. The Division Bench of this Court in a related matter (WA2175/2015) had affirmed Usman’s stance, guiding the present case. After detailed consideration of statutory provisions (MV Act and Kerala Rules) and precedent, the court held that renewal without a vehicle, or permitting replacement without endorsement, could be invalid. The writ appeal is dismissed with costs, upholding the lower court’s order and the related directions to complete the renewal and replacement process in accordance with law.
This is a Kerala High Court revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging the concurrent orders of the Rent Control Court (RCP 93/2009) and the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA 158/2011) which fixed the fair rent for a building let in 1966 at ₹5,500 per month with quinquennial increases of 25%. The petition was filed by Joju George as the revision petitioner against the tenant respondents led by Mathu and others (LRs impleaded). The petition contends that the initial rent of ₹225 per month (1966) was far below market value and that a fair rent of ₹10,000 per month from 2009 onward is warranted; it challenges the routine application of periodic enhancement. The RCC found the rent of ₹5,500 per month to be fair w.e.f. 01/08/2009 and directed a 25% increase every five years, a finding upheld by the RCAA. In a detailed analysis, the High Court reiterates the scope of Section 20—restricting interference to illegality, irregularity, or impropriety—and stresses that the revisional court cannot re‑weigh evidence. It relies on Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria to justify quinquennial revision and cites Sreekumaran Nair and Kadar Pillai to discuss periodic increases and the need for cogent reasons. Observing cogent reasons are present in the findings of RCC and RCAA, the court dismisses the revision as without merit. The bench comprises P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3013 OF 2022 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by six petitioners accused in Crime No. 290 of 2022 registered at Adimaly Police Station, Idukki, for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges a conspiracy to cheat the de facto complainant by offering to build a house at Adimaly at a low cost, resulting in a payment of Rs. 16,11,408, but non-fulfillment of the agreement causing a loss of Rs. 23,11,408 to the complainant. The petitioners contend that even if the allegations are accepted, no offence is made out beyond breach of Annexure A1; they are willing to comply with stringent conditions and custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail. Relying on the settled bail jurisprudence, the court notes that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and also discusses Joginder Kumar on the distinction between the power to arrest and the justification for arrest. After hearing, the court allows the bail application, subject to conditions: appearance before IO within two weeks, bond and sureties, cooperation, non-absconding, no leaving the country, regular IO appearances, and other standard restraints. The order reflects a balance between liberty and the investigative needs while safeguarding fair trial rights.
WP(C).No. 12364 of 2017 (U) This writ petition by Sabarish R., UD Clerk in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation at Palakkad, challenges the 29 vacancies reserved for compassionate appointment and the subsequent promotion of LD Clerks to Assistant Grade II. He joined in 2014 and completed probation on 9.1.2015. The recruitment rules permit direct recruitment to Assistant Grade II only in the absence of qualified LD Clerks, and LD Clerks with degrees are eligible for promotion. In 2016, this Court held that reserving more than 5% of vacancies for compassionate appointment is illegal and directed the case be determined afresh in light of seniority and eligibility. The respondents later issued Ext.P5, purporting that the 29 vacancies arose before the petitioner’s probation and thus he could not be considered for Assistant Grade II promotion. The petitioner argued that once vacancies exist, promotion should be considered when the probation is completed, and not barred by the date of vacancy; Ext.P6’s rationale was unsustainable. The respondents contended the petitioner’s option (Ext.R1(C)) was conditional, allowing UD Clerk promotion only if no Assistant Grade II vacancies were available. The Court found the reasoning untenable, set aside Ext.P6, and directed promotion consideration against one of the 29 compassionate vacancies in light of seniority and any comparable options, with orders to be passed within two months. A correction in 2018 amended references to Ext.P5 and Ext.R1(C).
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case concerns a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and an application to implead a partnership firm as an additional accused. The petitioner, Indira Gandhi Memorial General Marketing Society Ltd., contends that the dishonoured cheque(s) were drawn on the account of M/s Abraham Varghese & Company (a partnership), and that under the settled law there can be vicarious liability for the company or its principals. The matter centers on two complaints: S.T.216/2009 (Rs.3,21,375) where only the first respondent was an accused, and S.T.129/2010 (Rs.6,75,800) where the first respondent and the partnership firm were named. The trial court allowed joint trial and treated S.T.216/2009 as leading, but the petitioner sought to implead the partnership as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. After hearings, the Magistrate dismissed the impleadment application. The petitioner relies on Anil Hada and Aneeta Hada decisions (two- and three-judge benches) to argue that arraying the company is not always mandatory and that the drawer may be charged directly, while newer jurisprudence requires the company/partnership to be named as accused when the cheque is drawn from its account. The court ultimately upholds the later law and holds that since the mandatory statutory demand notice under Section 138 proviso was not issued to the drawer (additional respondent 3), there is no basis to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add them as accused. The petition is dismissed, and the Annexure-5 order stands.
MACA No. 272 of 2020 (D) / MACA No. 2099 of 2020 (F) This is a common Kerala High Court judgment (MacA Nos. 272 of 2020 and 2099 of 2020) by Justice C. S. Dias, delivered on 01 March 2021, arising from an award in OP(MV) No. 1145 of 2014 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner, Jafeth Koshy, sustained injuries in a road traffic collision on 23.12.2013 while overtaking a car; the vehicle involved was owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000 as compensation with costs, but the insurer and the owner challenged this. The core legal issue concerns the evidentiary value of a police charge sheet under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether a petition under Sec. 166 can be converted by the Tribunal into a petition under Sec. 163A. The court reiterates that police charge sheets can be prima facie evidence of negligence (per Pazhaniammal and National Insurance Co.) and that courts cannot convert a Sec.166 petition to Sec.163A (as held in Akbar Shihab and Deepal Girishbhai Soni). On the facts, the Tribunal erred in treating the charge sheet as conclusive or in converting the petition to Sec.163A; it also improperly concluded there was no disability. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned award, and dismissed OP(MV) 1145/2014, directing the matter to proceed in accordance with law.
MACA No. 2953 of 2008; CO No. 53 of 2021 This is a combined appeal and cross-objection arising from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in OP(MV) No.1027/2001, concerning the death of Sri. Jayan in a 5.3.2001 accident involving TN State Road Transport Corporation (appellant) and a lorry insured by National Insurance Company. The petitioners (Beena Jayan and family) claimed compensation for death of the breadwinner, alleging dependence and seeking quantum under various heads. The Tribunal partly allowed the petitioners’ claim, holding the first respondent liable and awarding Rs. 2,85,000 to petitioners 1–3, while holding parents not dependents. The appellant contended set-ex-parte status, arguing lack of opportunity to contest merits and challenging the quantum as excessive, while respondents contended that compensation was not adequately computed, notional income and multiplier were misapplied, and future prospects should be considered. The Kerala High Court analyzed whether the appellant should be re- heard on merits, and re-evaluated the compensation under established precedents. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (notably Pranay Sethi and Sarala Verma) and other Kerala judgments, the court recalculated notional income, revised multiplier, allowed future prospects, and adjusted conventional heads. The court ultimately enhanced the award and dismissed the MACA while allowing the CO, directing deposit of the enhanced amount with proportionate costs.
This High Court of Kerala Division Bench, comprising Justice K. Surendra Mohan and Justice Annie John, heard WA No.1493 of 2015 arising from W.P.(C) 23576 of 2013. The appellant Medical Council of India (MCI) challenged a 2015 Single Judge order that had quashed Ext.P4 and directed recognition of the first respondent’s DM (Nephrology) degree. The first respondent, employed as an Assistant Professor at Government TD Medical College, Alappuzha, completed the DM (Nephrology) in 1996–1998 after admission and start of the course in 1995, with permission initially pending from the MCI. She obtained University recognition (ext. P1) in 1999, and the Government of India granted permission to start the course effective from 3.12.1999 after inspections in 1996 and 1999–2008. The MCI rejected recognition for the DM degree on the ground that prior Central permission under Section 10A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was not obtained before starting the course, and that the course duration and regulatory requirements did not permit retroactive recognition. The Division Bench, however, set aside the Single Judge’s relief, ruling that recognition cannot be granted for post hoc periods without proper compliance with the statutory permission regime, and directed the MCI to consider the petitioner's recognition afresh within law. The appeal was allowed with directions for a fresh, law-compliant determination and expeditious action (two months).
This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 (the temporary injunction order) and Ext.P6 (the CMA dismissal) in O.S. No.181/2020 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit: (1) The S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam No.862, an unregistered association represented by plaintiffs 2 and 3, (2) K.J. Agith, and (3) Sivan Kutttappan. The respondents are the defendants: (1) Subin Kumar V.S., (2) Kunnathunadu SNDP Union (represented by its convener, chairman and one member of its Administrative Committee), (3) Sajith Narayanan, (4) Karnan K.K., and (5) M.A. Raju. The suit seeks a declaration that the Sakha Yogam’s right of management over its own properties and the affiliated schools vests in the Sakha Yogam, and a prohibitory injunction restraining the Union from interfering with that right. The Union asserts supervisory control over Sakha Yogams and Unions under SNDP Yogam, citing bye-law provisions and a notice (13.05.2020) directing the Sakha Yogam’s Secretary to hand over records and refrain from decisions without Union knowledge. The High Court, applying supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, finds no prima facie case and dismisses the petition, upholding the trial court and appellate court decisions.”,
This writ petition (WP(C) 9041 of 2019) before the Kerala High Court concerns obstruction of ingress and egress to three adjacent commercial establishments and a residence on the M.C. Road at Chingavanam, Kottayam. The petitioners—Jomol Mathew (Beauty Centre and gift items), Abraham Philipose (Anurag Glass House), and Thomas Philip (Tossy Footwear)—allege unauthorized and continuous parking of autorickshaws in front of their shops, and blocking access to their premises and residence. They rely on their private right of access to the public road abutting their property and contend that authorities have failed to designate an authorized parking area, thereby hampering business and residence access. Respondents include the District Police Chief, the Sub Inspector of Police, the Secretary of Kottayam Municipality, and Saji Abraham Thakidiiyil House owner. The court examines long-standing precedents on landowners’ rights adjoining public roads and the duty of authorities under traffic and police regulations. It holds that a private right of access to the highway exists and that obstructing it is unjustified, directing police protection, and calling for formation of a Traffic Regulatory Committee and an authorized parking plan. The petition is disposed with interim arrangements allowing limited parking until the new order is in place.
This Kerala High Court decision concerns OP(KAT) No.69 of 2021, challenging a Kerala Administrative Tribunal order (OA EKM 422/2014) that granted regularisation to Ayesha Kunjumohammed, a casual sweeper at Maradu Village Office. The respondent-original applicant, engaged since 1987, pressed for regularisation under Government orders premised on a sweeping-area threshold of 100 square metres. The sequence of instruments includes Annexure A2 (2004) sanctioning arrears on the basis of offices having area above 100 sq m; Annexure A3 (2005) GO setting out regularisation norms for posts created for areas above 100 sq m and prescribing dates from either appointment or 18.6.2001; Annexure A5 (2011) regularising from 30.6.2010; Annexure A9 (2011) rejecting the claim; Annexure A11 (2013) ordering regularisation from 30.6.2010. The Tribunal ultimately held that the applicant was entitled to regularisation with effect from 18.6.2001 and to all consequential benefits. The petitioners argued that the Maradu Office’s building did not exceed 100 sq m until its shift on 30.6.2010, relying on post-2010 measurements and asserting Annexure A11 was flawed, while the respondent contended for adherence to the GO scheme and prior court directions. The High Court, after considering these submissions, held that the Tribunal’s order requires no interference but modified it to ensure compliance within six weeks, affirming regularisation from 18.6.2001 and related benefits.
RP.No.1114 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No.31814 of 2017 This is a Kerala High Court review arising from W.P.(C) No.31814 of 2017 challenging admissions decisions by Self-Financing Medical Colleges under NEET regime. The Review Petitions (RP No.1114 of 2017) are filed by ASC and FRC, seeking recall of the Court’s 25 October 2017 judgment which had allowed the writ petitions challenging the Colleges’ admissions and the directives issued by the ASC/FRC regarding online applications. The core issues are (i) whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the reviewed judgment; (ii) whether online applications were mandatory and if that condition had been altered by the Supreme Court’s order; (iii) whether the ASC/FRC had the power to file a review petition, and (iv) whether the writ petitioners were aggrieved or whether the review petition was maintainable. The Court traces the NEET-based admission process, the orders of this Court (Annexure 1) and the Apex Court’s Annexure 2 order dated 28.09.2016, and subsequent directives (Annexures 3–9, 15–17). It notes that Annexure 2 confined its interdiction to condition (i) and not to the online filing requirement (condition (ii)). The bench recalls the 25.10.2017 judgment, allows the Review Petition, and revives the writ petition for hearing before the regular bench, emphasizing transparency and online-application directives as still operative. The decision is to proceed with further hearing on the merits.
This is a criminal appeal under section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by K. Kumaran challenging a conviction for possession and transit of illicit arrack under the Abkari Act (sections 8(1) and 8(2)). On 3 June 2009, during a patrolling duty, PW4, assisted by PW1, intercepted the accused near the Belur village while he carried a white five‑litre plastic can containing illicit arrack. The container was seized; a sample (300 ml from a 375 ml bottle) was drawn, sealed, and the bottle was labelled in the presence of witnesses PW2 and PW3. Ext.P1 mahazar, Ext.P2 arrest memo, and Ext.P6 crime report were raised at the spot, and the contraband was produced at the Excise Range Office along with the accused. The sample was sent for chemical analysis, resulting in Ext.P13 revealing 28.17% by volume ethyl alcohol. PW5 conducted the investigation, and the final report led to trial in the Court of Sessions, where the accused was convicted and sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, with default six months’ imprisonment. The defense challenged the sufficiency of evidence, alleged non‑compliance with S.53A, and delay in investigation. The High Court, while upholding the trial court, held the official witnesses credible, rejected the argument that delay invalidated the case, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence as reasonable and proportionate.
Dr. R. Gopinathan filed this writ petition under Article 226 challenging encroachments on the Polachal canal (Polachal thodu), Guru Mandiram canal, and nearby areas by respondents 5 to 7. He sought mandamus to direct the District Collector and other authorities to conduct a resurvey and evict encroachments, and to restore the canal’s width and extent as per the applicable boundary/regulatory standards (BTR); Ext. P1 was also to be considered. The record shows that a Division Bench previously directed a demarcation through the Tahsildar (29.05.2019) and, on 02.09.2019, the District Collector arranged for an extended survey covering ¾ kilometer, with further surveys in Re.Sy.Nos. 552/1, 553/1 and 543 in Pathiyoor. An unnumbered application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was discussed; the Government Pleader explained the survey progress and its results. The respondents contended that encroachments by 5–7 were not established; the Tahsildar’s report indicated encroachments by other private parties but not the petitioners’ respondents. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act was discussed to assess evidentiary value. The Court concluded there was no malafide or illegality in the surveys, refused appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, and dismissed the petition, placing the survey reports on record. It left open action against non-parties encroachers under law.
Ramanatha Prabhu N. approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 challenging the refusal to issue revenue records for his property, which includes 8 cents and 174 cents of land in Perole Village, Hosdurg Taluk. He asserts absolute title and possession, evidenced by Ext.P1 (basic tax receipt, dated 11.09.2020), and seeks a possession certificate and expedited revenue records under Ext.P4. A portion of the land is earmarked for widening the Nileshwar–Edathodu road, and respondents argued that a civil partition suit (O.S. No. 52/2001) precludes issuance of records. An additional respondent (6th) was impleaded, claiming co-ownership and contesting relief. The Court noted a chain of title tracing back to Narayana Prabhu and reviewed Ext.P3 (order in CRPs 2126/1987 and connected cases) which discussed tenancy rights among family members, indicating tenancy belonged to Narayana Prabhu and possibly others, with final determination to be made in civil proceedings. The petitioner has been in possession based on Land Tribunal orders. The Court relied on NevIn Raju v. S. Basheer (2015 KLJ 197) to hold that pendency of a suit is not a ground to deny issuance of revenue records. It allowed the writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent to issue revenue records and consider Ext.P4 within two weeks, while preserving final rights in O.S.52/2001.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.MC No. 796 of 2019) by Lizy Paul, the 2nd accused in SC No. 746/2018 of the District and Sessions Court No.1, Kasaragod, arising under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The first accused, a teacher at Marypuram St. Mary’s ALP School, Kasaragod, is alleged to have sexually abused several students. The petitioner, as headmistress of the same school, is alleged to have failed to report the offence to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police, thereby attracting Section 19(2) read with Section 21(2) of the Act. The defence submits that the Corporate Manager of the institution is the person in charge and that the petitioner’s sole duty was to report to him; she had in fact informed the Corporate Manager, who personally visited the school and recorded statements. It is contended that Kerala Educational Rules, 1959 do not make every teacher the subordinate of the headmistress. Thus, the proceedings are urged to be an abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed. The Public Prosecutor counters that Section 19 imposes an obligation to inform law enforcement authorities, and that Section 21(1) and (2) extend liability to those in charge of an institution who fail to report. The court explains that under Section 19, the non-obstante clause obliges reporting; at the initial stage the standard is prima facie, not a full merits review, and thus the petition is dismissed and the proceedings may continue, with discharge available at an appropriate stage.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal under MACA No.1924 of 2010 arising from a fatal road accident near Kalpetta on 21 February 2006, where Siju Varghese, aged 29, died after a motorcycle collision with a jeep. The appellants are the parents and siblings of the deceased, who had filed a claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, seeking compensation of Rs 25 lakhs. The Tribunal awarded Rs 5,24,700 with simple interest at 5.7% p.a. The appellants challenged the quantum on several grounds: wrong estimation of monthly income, erroneous multiplier, and under-valuation under heads such as loss of love and affection, pain and suffering, funeral expenses, and loss of estate. They contended that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Pranay Sethi guide the multiplier (for a 29-year-old, 17) and the inclusion of future prospects (50%) while deducting personal living expenses (50%). The High Court found the Tribunal’s multiplier erroneous (used 13 instead of 17) and the monthly income miscalculated (Ext.A8/A10 evidence). Reassessment yielded loss of dependency of Rs 10,28,160; after accounting for what had already been granted, an additional Rs 5,28,960 was payable. The Court also granted Rs 15,000 each for funeral expenses and loss of estate, Rs 30,000 for love and affection, and Rs 5,000 for pain and suffering, plus interest. The appeal is disposed of with no costs; enhanced compensation and deposit within three months ordered.
Mukesh K.C., a former Canara Bank manager, was suspended in 2016 at Cheruvathoor branch and faced a charge sheet in 2017 following a disciplinary enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report in 2017, objections were filed, and the disciplinary authority imposed dismissal without issuing a show cause notice. The petitioner challenged the punishment through a writ petition under Article 226, seeking to set aside the enquiry report and the orders, reinstate him with full benefits, and seeking related relief. The respondents filed a counter affidavit raising lack of territorial jurisdiction since the proceedings and orders originated outside Kerala, in Karnataka. The petitioner argued that Article 226(2) empowers the High Court to issue directions within the territories where part of the cause of action arises; notices and communications were received in Kerala, suggesting jurisdiction. The respondents relied on authorities including S.S. Rathore, Nakul Deo Singh, Indian Maritime University v. Viswanathan, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., Nawal Kishore Sharma, and Shanti Devi/Shanti Mishra to oppose jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Kerala High Court held that all material proceedings were initiated and conducted in Karnataka; mere notices to the petitioner in Kerala did not create a cause of action within Kerala. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction without addressing merits.
The petitioner, Sandeep G S, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Travancore Devaswom Board’s permission to operate an amusement park within the Sanghumugham Devi Temple premises, alleging threats to sanctity and ritual functioning. The Board had allowed Ganesh Kumar S (referred to as Suresh S Kumar earlier) to use Devaswom land for the Onam Fest 2022 from 22.08.2022 to 20.09.2022, after evaluating reports and fixing rent (Rs. 5,000 per day plus 18% GST) with a security deposit of Rs. 1,50,000. The petitioner sought mandamus to stop such activities, demolish the structures, conduct Devaprasnam, initiate disciplinary action against officials, and recover expenses from those responsible, including production of records regarding the letting of temple land. The respondents contended the arrangement was authorized, with conditions to avoid disrupting temple rituals, and that the Devaswom’s management under the Travancore Devaswom Act imposes duties to supervise, safeguard, and facilitate temple practices while generating income from properties. The court examined the Travancore Devaswom Act provisions (Sections 3, 4, 15, 15A, 16, 24, 27, 31), heard affidavits, and relied on jurisprudence emphasizing fiduciary duties of trustees and the protection of temple properties. The judgment directs compliance with statutory duties and market-based rent practices, directing communication to the State Audit Department and disposing of the petition with these directions.
This is a Kerala High Court Rent Control Revision (RCRev. No. 69 of 2014) arising from eviction proceedings under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The revision petitioner is the tenant who seeks to retain occupation of petition schedule shop rooms, contending bona fide need to start a shop for sale of electrical and electronic items for his dependent son, for which the petitioner and his dependent have no other building in their possession, and that the petition schedule premises are essential to establish the new business. The respondent landlord opposes the eviction, arguing that the need is not bona fide; the dependent is an engineering student and the petitioner, a director of a company with substantial turnover, need not resort to eviction; moreover, the petitioner has other shop spaces and there is insufficient demonstration of lack of alternate premises in the locality. The Rent Control Courts found the need to be bonafide and rejected the protections under the second proviso to Section 11(3). On revision, the Kerala High Court reiterates the limited scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction and, relying on established precedents, holds that the bonafide need can be proved even where the landlord has other income sources, and that mere oral assertions by the tenant under the second proviso are insufficient without supporting evidence. The revision petition is dismissed, and the tenant is granted seven months to vacate, subject to conditions: filing an affidavit, depositing arrears, and continued rent payment; failure to comply will render the eviction order executable.
