Partly allowed

Viswambharan v. Kaderkutty

Kerala HC6 Nov 2013OP (RC)/3585/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment orders the Commissioner to conduct an inspection and file a report within three weeks regarding a rent control petition, setting aside the lower court's order that rejected such a remittal and directing the petitioner to bear the expenses.

What did the court decide?

Commissioner directed to inspect and file report within three weeks; lower order partially set aside; petitioner to bear expenses.

Viswambharan Vs Kaderkutty — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

OP (RC).No. 3585 of 2013 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A NO.1610/2013 IN RCP 32/2012 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TIRUR DATED 07/10/2013

¶7

PETITIONER(S): --------------

¶8

VISWAMBHARAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.KUTTITHARA SIVARAMAN, BLUE STAR BAKERY, COURT ROAD TIRUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.M.DEVESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶11

KADERKUTTY @ BAPPU,, AGED 51 YEARS KUNHALIKUTTY, CHUNDAM VEETTIL, PAZHAYA OTTAYIL HOUSE THALAKKAD AMSOM, THEVALAPURAM DESOM, P.O.B.P.ANGADI TIRUR TALUK, PIN: 676 101. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.C.BINDUMOL

¶12

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

OP (RC).No. 3585 of 2013 (O)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION DATED 31/7/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, TIRUR.

¶17

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH SKETCH DATED 21/6/2013.

¶18

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16/7/2013

¶19

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF I.A 1610/2013 DATED 24/9/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, TIRUR.

¶20

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT IN I.A 1610/2013 DATED 7/10/2013.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

\True copy//

P.A to Judge

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶27

O.P.(RC).No.3585/2013

¶28

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶31

The petitioner, who is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.32/2012,

¶32

aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed in I.A.No.1610/2013 in R.C.P.No.32/2012, has approached this Court by filing this O.P. (Rent Control).

¶33

Going by the pleadings in the original petition filed before this Court, a report of the Commissioner was sought by the landlord on certain aspects and Ext.P2 is the copy of the report filed by the Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioner herein by Ext.P4 application sought to remit the report back to the Commissioner to note certain aspects. The view taken by the Rent Control Court is that there is no necessity to remit the Commissioner's report.

¶34

We heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri T.Krishnan Unni for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri K.Ramachandran appearing for the respondent.

¶35

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

¶36

that the location of the petition schedule building and the approximate

¶37

O.P.(RC).No.3585/2013

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

distance from the said building to other nearby buildings have not been reported by the Commissioner. It is stated that there are various offices nearby but according to the tenant, it is not an important locality. It is also submitted that the tenant will be unable to procure evidence as observed by the Rent Control Court in para.9 of Ext.P5 order.

¶40

Learned counsel Shri K.Ramachandran submitted that the attempt of the tenant is only to delay the trial of the case and various materials have been made available by the Commissioner. It is further submitted that if this Court is inclined to remit the report to the Commissioner, those particulars which are required for a proper disposal of the rent control petition alone may be directed to be verified and according to the learned counsel, inspection by the Commissioner in respect of item Nos.(b) and (c) noted in Ext.P4, is not necessary as found by the court below.

¶41

After hearing parties, we are of the view that a report is not required in respect of item (c) of Ext.P4 by the Commissioner. As far as items (b) and (d) of Ext.P4 (I.A.No.1610/2013) are concerned, a report will have to be obtained through the same Commissioner. Since it is prayed for

¶42

O.P.(RC).No.3585/2013

¶43

-:3:-

¶44

a speedy disposal of the rent control petition, the Commissioner is directed to conduct an inspection and file a report before the Rent Control Court within three weeks. To that extent Ext.P5 is set aside. The expenses of the Commissioner will be fixed by the court below and it will be paid by the petitioner herein. The Original Petition (Rent Control) is disposed of as above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

( B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶49

Viswambharan v. Kaderkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viswambharan v. Kaderkutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopalakrishnan Vs Khadeeja Abdul Rahman

K.Thahira Vs K.K.Mumthas

Madhavi Warasyar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Examiner

M.J.Sebastian Vs Preetha

Jasmine Rasheed Vs B.U.Afsal