The High Court allowed the original petition and vacated the order refusing a commission. It held that the Rent Control Court must consider current facts and directed it to appoint a commission.
Vacated the impugned order and directed the Rent Control Court to send a commission in terms of the applicant's request.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930
OP.No. 3076 of 2002(N) ----------------------
PETITIONER:
MURALI HOTELS AND RESORTS(PVT) LTD., GURUVAYOOR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR V.V.MURALIDHARAN, VEPPIL, VELAPPAN, AGED 45, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R3 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R3
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON 12/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER ON CMP NO.5476/2002 IN O.P. NO.3076/2002
DISMISSED:
SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) 12.8.2008 SD/-(V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSIONER AS I.A. NO.3881/2001 DT.9.8.2001.
P2: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF PETITION I.A. NO.3881/2001 DT.9.8.2001.
P3: TRUE OCPY OF ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED MUNSIFFS IN I.A. NO.3881/2001 IN RCP 28/2000 DT.23.10.2001.
TRUE COPY
PA TO JUDGE
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
O.P. No.3076 of 2002
.................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order whereunder the Rent Control Court rejected an application for issuance of a commission on the ground that there is already a commission report pertaining to the same building in a rent control eviction petition filed in 1996. Counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a fresh case and unless current facts are not brought to the notice of the Rent Control Court through a fresh commission report, case cannot be effectively decided. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the contesting respondents also.
2
respondents are free to bring to the notice of the Commissioner whatever
facts they consider relevant for the purpose of the case and to file objection
to the Commissioner's report, if they so desire.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge
V.K.MOHANAN Judge
pms
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Rent Control Court was correct in rejecting a commission application because a prior report existed for the same building.
Whether a fresh commission report is necessary to ascertain current facts in a rent control eviction petition.
Murali Hotels and Resorts(Pvt) Ltd., Guruvayoor
Rosa
Thariyan
Kochuvarekey
C.N. Ramachandran Nair
V.K. Mohanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
