Petitioner challenged an order allowing respondent substitution without notice. Court held order was appealable under Sec.18 of Kerala Act, trial commenced, and no reason to invoke Art.227 jurisdiction.
The High Court declined to interfere with the proceedings of the Rent Control Court under Art.227 and disposed of the OP (RC).
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 K.HARILAL &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017/13TH CHAITHRA, 1939
OP (RC).No. 56 of 2017 (O)
[AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10-2-2016 IN IA NO.977/2016 IN RCP NO.81/2015 OF THE III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF AND RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM.]
PETITIONER:
LINTEX CONSTRUCTION AND PROPERTIES PVT.LTD., DOOR NO.VII/570 FG, IST FLOOR, ANJANA COMPLEX, KUNDANNOOR, N H BYE-PASS, KOCHI-34, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN KUM.M .ANJU THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. E.P.RAMESAN
S/O.C.V.PRABHAKARAN, 1C, SWAPNIL APARTMENTS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI-17,
2. MINI RAMESAN W/O.RAMESAN, 1C , SWAPNIL APARTMENTS, KALOOR-KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHI-17,
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.BASIL MATHEW ADV. SMT.T.O.DEEPA
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (RC).No. 56 of 2017 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION NO.81/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN ON 9/6/2015 AGAINST ONE M/S.MIDDLE EAST HOTEL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED.
EXHIBIT P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION IA NO 977/2016 IN RCP NO.81/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN BEFORE THE LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT.
EXHIBIT P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO 977/2016 IN RCP NO 81/2015 DTD 10/2/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED RCP 81/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN BEFORE THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT IN RCP 81/2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
NIL
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
K. HARILAL & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V., JJ.
O.P. (RC) No.56 of 2017-O
---------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2017
JUDGMENT
Harilal, J.
The petitioner herein is the respondent in R.C.P.No.81/2015 pending before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. According to the petitioner, though, the petitioner is the tenant and is occupying the building on the basis of a lease deed executed between the petitioner and the respondent, without making the petitioner herein as a respondent, the aforesaid Rent Control Petition was filed against one M/s. Middle East Hotel Company Pvt. Ltd., the previous tenant. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application seeking substitution of the petitioner as tenant in the original Rent Control Petition and the
O.P. (RC) No.56 of 2017 -: 2 :-
same was allowed, without notice to the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the amendment allowed by the Rent Control Court was illegal and unsustainable, under law, and liable to be set aside, invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.
O.P. (RC) No.56 of 2017 -: 3 :-
Art.227 of the Constitution of India.
not just and proper to interfere with the proceedings of the court below and we find no reason to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. All the contentions raised in this OP(RC) will be left open for the trial.
This OP(RC) is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
Nan/
Sd/- (RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE) //true copy// P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution to set aside an appealable order of the Rent Control Court allowing amendment.
Whether the delay of fourteen months since the passing of the impugned order warrants interference by the High Court.
Lintex Construction and Properties Pvt. Ltd.
E. P. Ramesan
Mini Ramesan
K Harilal
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
