High Court Kerala High Court

V.G.Gopinatha Pillai vs Jaya Rani (Husband’S Name Not … on 9 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
V.G.Gopinatha Pillai vs Jaya Rani (Husband’S Name Not … on 9 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19122 of 2009(I)


1. V.G.GOPINATHA PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. JAYA RANI (HUSBAND'S NAME NOT STATED)
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.TOM JOSE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI

 Dated :09/07/2009

 O R D E R
               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
               P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.
           ------------------------------------------------
                 W. P. C. No.19122 of 2009
           ------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009

                          JUDGMENT

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

In the nature of the limited relief which is being

given to the petitioner, we are of the view that it is not

necessary to issue notice to the respondent/landlady.

2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition filed under

Article 227 is the tenant and Ext.P4 order of eviction

has been passed ex parte against him. On coming to

know about Ext.P4, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 petition

for setting aside the ex parte order and Ext.P8 petition

seeking condonation of delay of 220 days caused in

the matter of filing Ext.P7. Apart from that, Ext.P9

stay petition is also filed seeking stay of execution

proceedings. The Rent Control Court has posted

Exts.P7, P8 and P9 to 17/07/09. The grievance voiced

W. P. C. No.19122 of 2009 -2-

by the petitioner is that in the meanwhile, the learned

Munsiff who is executing Ext.P4 has ordered delivery.

The case of the petitioner is that if delivery happens to

take place on 17/07/09, the date to which it is posted,

Exts.P7, P8 and P9 will become infructuous. Learned

counsel submits that even though copies of Exts.P7,

P8 and P9 were served on the Advocate who is

appearing for the landlady in the Rent Control Court

and the learned Advocate received the copies, the

Rent Control Court has issued notice to the respondent

and that is why the petitioner is unable to obtain

interim order of stay in the matter.

3. We are of the view that without going into the

merits of the grounds raised in Ext.P7 application to

set aside the ex parte order, this Writ Petition can be

disposed of issuing the following directions:-

1) If the counsel for the respondent before the

Rent Control Court has already taken notice of

W. P. C. No.19122 of 2009 -3-

Exts.P7, P8 and P9 as claimed by the petitioner, the

Rent Control Court will dispose of Ext.P7 or at least

Ext.P8 at the earliest, at any rate within two weeks of

receiving copy of the judgment. If the learned court

finds difficulty in disposing of Ext.P7 or even Ext.P8

within the time frame, at least interim orders will be

passed on Ext.P9 stay petition within the above time

frame.

4. Considering the above directions, delivery

pursuant to the order passed by the execution court

will stand adjourned to 31st instant.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE

P. Q. BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
kns/-