IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33487 of 2009(E)
1. SMT. SHAMSHAD.M.H. AGED 50
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR. P.A. PAUL AGE 55, S/O. ANTHAPPAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.C.T.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :14/12/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = =
W.P.(C) NO. 33487 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
Petitioner is a tenant, who is faced with an eviction passed by the
Rent Control Court. In execution of the order passed by the rent control
Court, E.P. 330/2009 was filed. Summons was issued on 12.8.2009 to
show cause as to why the order shall not be executed. The case was
posted to 12.10.2009. Thereafter, notice was served by affixture and
when the proceedings were continued petitioner approached this Court
inter alia contending that she had preferred an appeal along with a
petition for condoning the delay and also filed a stay petition before the
appellate authority; but the appellate authority has issued notice pending
consideration of the delay condonation application and thereafter the
stay application and in case she is physically evicted from the tenanted
premises, that will cause undue hardship.
2. In the writ petition, it is specifically urged that the affixture
was done without any witness and the business premises is situated in an
WP(C) 33487/2009
2
important locality of Ernakulam city and proper service is not there by
affixture. These allegations being supported by an affidavit and considering
the balance of convenience, notice was ordered and granted a stay. We
have called for the records and verified the same. From the records it
appears that the Process Server returned the summons with the endorsement
that the business premises of the tenant remained closed and on enquiry,
people of the neighbourhood stated that now-a-days petitioner’s business
premises is not opened. Thereafter, the court ordered notice to be served by
affixture. It was reported by the Process Server that affixture has been
effected but nobody came forward to sign as a witness and hence he
reported the matter after affixture. The petitioner has filed a detailed
objection regarding the manner of service of notice. From the records
available, it cannot be said that without taking further evidence this way or
the other and we cannot accept what has been stated in the writ petition
without further evidence. Therefore, the objection will be considered by
the trial court in due course if an occasion arises. We say so because now
that the matter has been admitted by the appellate authority and granted
stay, possibly the proceedings will have to be continued subject to the
orders passed by the appellate authority.
WP(C) 33487/2009
3
In the circumstances, this writ petition at this stage has become
infructuous. Dismissed.
P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
(JUDGE)
KNC/-