Dismissed

Kodakkal Puthiya Veettil Chandran v. S.v.Abdulla Kunhi

Kerala HC14 Nov 2018OP (RC)/166/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an original petition. The petitioner challenged orders rejecting his applications for an Advocate Commissioner to inspect premises to prove a bona fide need for eviction under the Kerala Rent Control Act. The court held no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed with no reasons for interference with the lower court's orders.

Kodakkal Puthiya Veettil Chandran Vs S.v.Abdulla Kunhi — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1940

¶6

OP (RC).No. 166 of 2018

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 20/2016 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

KODAKKAL PUTHIYA VEETTIL CHANDRAN

¶10

AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, OMKAR FURNITURE, JMA COMPLEX, PILATHARA, KUNHIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.M.SASINDRAN SATHEESAN ALAKKADAN

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

S.V.ABDULLA KUNHI

¶15

AGED 76 YEARS S/O.MAYAN KUTTY, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.MAYAN KUTTY, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 001.

¶16

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O.P.(RC) No.166 /2018

¶18

-:2:-

¶19

C.K. ABDUL REHIM &

¶20

T.V. ANILKUMAR, JJ.

¶21

-----------------------------------------------------

¶22

O.P.(RC) No. 166 OF 2018 O

¶23

-------------------------------------------------------

¶24

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2018

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Abdul Rehim, J.

¶27

Invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to set aside Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Rent Control Court, Payyannur, dated 31.10.2018.

¶28

The petitioner herein is the tenant in RCP No.20/2016, before the Rent Control Court, which was instituted by the respondent herein, the landlord. The eviction was sought

¶29

for on the grounds provided under Section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. When the case stood posted for commencement of trial,

¶30

the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.1024/2018 seeking for

¶31

O.P.(RC) No.166 /2018

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local inspection at the tenanted premises and on another premise situated nearby to the petition schedule building which is now occupied by a person named Sri.Muthuraj; and also to inspect a godown situated in front of the said premises, in order to ascertain and report the present situation of the said premises. He had also filed I.A.No.1025/2018 seeking for removal of the case from the trial list. Both the above applications were dismissed by the Rent Controller through Exts.P6 and P7 orders, respectively. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner himself had accepted that Sri.Muthuraj is in possession of the western room adjoining the tenanted premises. Therefore it was found that the inspection sought for by the Advocate Commissioner is not having any relevance and the same is not necessary for proving his contentions. Further it was found that the inspection of the status of the godown in order to ascertain whether it will cause any inconvenience to the

¶34

O.P.(RC) No.166 /2018

¶35

-:4:-

¶36

tenant in conducting his business is also equally irrelevant, because such an issue is not germane for adjudication in the rent control petition. The Rent Controller also observed that, even though the petitioner was aware about possession of the adjoining room by Sri.Muthuraj and also about the existence of the godown from the very inception of the rent control petition, he had chosen to file the application for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner only at the fag end of the case when it was listed for trial. Hence the petitions were dismissed. The petitioner is challenging the said orders.

¶37

Contention of the petitioner is that the room in occupation of Sri.Muthuraj was let out by the landlord recently

¶38

and that the landlord could have utilized the said room for accomplishing the bonafide need projected in the case, if he had any genuine intention to start the business as claimed. It is contended that, in order to substantiate the said aspect, it is necessary to ascertain the nature of the said premises occupied

¶39

O.P.(RC) No.166 /2018

¶40

-:5:-

¶41

by Sri.Muthuraj and the facilities available in the said premises need to be brought in evidence before the court below.

¶42

While appreciating the above contention, it is

¶43

pertinent to note that; in the pleadings of the rent control petition, the bonafide need projected is that, the landlord is intending to start business in home appliances at the tenanted premises. It is the specific averment in the rent control petition that no other room suitable for starting the business is available in the possession of the landlord. In the schedule of the rent control petition it is specifically mentioned that the room situated on the western side of the tenanted premises is occupied by Sri.Muthuraj. In the objections filed by the petitioner herein to the rent control petition it was contended that, the landlord was in occupation of a room which is similar to that of the tenanted premises and that the said room was let out to Sri.Muthuraj after issuing the notice of eviction. We are of the considered opinion that, the issue as to whether the landlord was in vacant

¶44

O.P.(RC) No.166 /2018

¶45

-:6:-

¶46

possession of a room suitable to accomplish his need, prior to institution of the RCP, is a question upon which the petitioner is entitled to adduce evidence. But whether that aspect could be proved through conducting a local inspection, is the question. The request is to appoint the Advocate Commissioner to report the lie, nature and facilities of the western room which is occupied by Sri.Muthuraj. When it is an admitted fact that as on the date of filing of the rent control petition Sri.Muthuraj is in possession of the western room, no purpose will be served by taking out an Advocate Commission and in obtaining a report regarding the nature and lie of the said room and such an inspection will not in any manner reveal the date on which the entrustment of the said building to Sri.Muthuraj occurred. Therefore we are of the opinion that the trial court was right in rejecting the application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose shown in the application.

¶47

Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do

¶48

O.P.(RC) No.166 /2018

¶49

-:7:-

¶50

not think that there occurred any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by the Rent Controller, which are impugned in this original petition. Consequently, we find no reason for interference, especially by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, which is visitorial in nature.

¶51

Hence the above original petition is hereby dismissed.

¶52

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE .

¶53

Sd/- T.V. ANILKUMAR, JUDGE, JUDGE .

ul/-

[True copy]

P.S. to Judge.

O.P.(RC) No.166 /2018

¶58

-:8:-

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN R.C.P.NO.20 OF 2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL (MUNSIFFS)PAYYANNUR.

¶62

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.C.P.NO.20/2016 ON THE FILES OF RENT CONTROL (MUNISIFFS)PAYYANNUR.

¶63

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO APPOINT ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER AS I.A.NO.1024 OF 2018 IN R.C.P.NO.20 OF 2016 OF RENT CONTROL(MUNSIFF),PAYYANNUR.

¶64

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1025/2018 IN R.C.P.NO.20/2016.

¶65

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NOI.1023/2018 TO ADVANCE THE HEARING OF THE ABOVE RCP.

¶66

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 IN I.A.NO.1024/2018 IN RCP.NO.20/2016.

¶67

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018 IN I.A.NO.1025 OF 2018 IN R.C.P.NO.20/2016.

Kodakkal Puthiya Veettil Chandran v. S.v.Abdulla Kunhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kodakkal Puthiya Veettil Chandran v. S.v.Abdulla Kunhi

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

Sarin. K Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh.S Vs the Director General of Police

Lathika Vs the State Police Chief

Mr. Anil Kumar Vs Smt. Omana Kutty

Firoz P.S @ Sumesh P.S Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

T.J Antony @ Sony Vs Asha Sony @ Asha Antony