IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6765 of 2009(M)
1. CHAMAKKALAYIL JAYAPRAKASH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.MOHANDAS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.PRABHA R.MENON
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :11/03/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 6765 of 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.
The petitioner/landlord in RCP No.144/2007 on the files of
the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, is the petitioner herein.
Challenge is against Exts.P5 and P6 interim orders passed by
the Rent Control Court. It is submitted by the counsel for
petitioner that Rent Control Petition stands posted for evidence
of the respondent/tenant after closing evidence on behalf of the
petitioner. At this stage, Exts.P1 to P3 applications were filed.
Ext.P1 is interim application to receive additional document,
which was allowed as per Ext.P4 order. Ext.P2 is filed for
receipt of additional witness list and Ext.P3 is filed for re-opening
the evidence. Exts.P2 and P3 applications were dismissed by the
Rent Control Court through Exts.P5 and P6 orders finding that
there is no sufficient grounds to entertain those applications and
to reopen the evidence.
2. Heard Mrs. Prabha R.Menon learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr.P.A.Harish learned counsel appearing for
the respondents. The additional documents sought to be proved
WPC.No.6765/2009 2
in evidence is a paper advertisement published by the
Kozhikode Corporation, which is an auction notice offering vacant
rooms in a complex to be occupied on licence basis. According
to the petitioner, the said document, if marked in evidence, will
prove availability of suitable buildings for shifting business of the
tenant. It is evident from Ext.P4 order that the Rent control
Court has received the said document on files. The question to
be considered is whether the Rent Control Court is justified in
denying opportunity to the petitioner to mark the said document
in evidence. We do not find any cogent reason for denying
opportunity to the petitioner in marking the said document . On
the other hand, denial amounts to shutting down opportunity to
the petitioner for adducing available evidence, which he
considers as crucial in deciding the issue involved. In our opinion
such a denial of fair opportunity to adduce evidence will only
lead to multiplicity of litigations, because that may result in
remand of the case by the appellate authority or the revisional
authority, for adducing further evidence.
3. The learned counsel for respondent had contended that
the additional document sought to be marked in evidence is not
WPC.No.6765/2009 3
admissible in evidence and that it could not be proved through
the witness through whom it is sought to be marked. In this
writ petition we are not proposing to issue any direction
regarding admission of the document in evidence. The
admissibility of the document in evidence always need be decided
on the basis of provisions relating to law of procedure and
evidence. The respondent is free to raise his objections in this
regard.
4. Under the above circumstances, Exts.P5 and P6 orders
are set aside. I.A. Nos. 961/2009, 960/2009 in RCP
No.144/2007 stand allowed. The Rent Control Court will permit
the petitioner to adduce further evidence based on the additional
document produced. Needless to say that the respondent will be
given opportunity to rebut the evidence so adduced.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
dpk