IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26860 of 2010(F)
1. A.K.MOHANDAS, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 55 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. YESHODA ,W/O.KANNAN,
... Respondent
2. C.MOHANAN, S/O.CHANDRAN YESHODA,
3. C.RAJEEVAN, S/O.CHANDRAN YESHODA,
4. C.SREEJA D/O.CHANDRAN YESHODA,
5. C.RATNA SUNIL,D/O.CHANDRAN YESHODA,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.NAGARESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :30/08/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 26860 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 is
Ext.P5 order passed by the Additional Rent Control Appellate
Authority, Thalassery. By Ext.P5 order, the learned Appellate
Authority has dismissed I.A. No.1518/2008 which was an
application seeking review of an order passed by the Appellate
Authority in I.A. No.872/2004. By the order in I.A. No.872/2004,
the Appellate Authority admitted in evidence an additional
document on the side of the landlords. The additional document
was the certified copy of the Property Tax Assessment Register
pertaining to a few buildings in the same locality. That Property
Tax Assessment Register showed that vacant buildings are
available in the locality. The ground, which is seriously raised by
the writ petitioner/tenant, is that it was without notice to him
that the Appellate Authority admitted the above document. In
WPC.No.26860/2010 2
fact, in this case the Rent Control Court, after finding that the
need projected by the landlords is bona fide, declined eviction on
the basis of a finding that the tenant is entitled for the protection
of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. On the
basis of the evidence that was available before the Rent Control
Court, it was found that the tenant is depending for his livelihood
mainly on the income that he derives from the business carried
on in the petition schedule building and that other suitable
buildings are not available in the locality. The endeavour of the
landlords by producing additional document is to show that
other buildings are available in the locality.
2.According to Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned counsel for the writ
petitioner, serious prejudice has been occasioned to the writ
petitioner since it is likely that the learned Appellate Authority
will enter a finding on the basis of the document now admitted
that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the second
proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11. According to him, even
though the learned Appellate Authority has observed in the
impugned order that the tenant filed an objection, the
contentions raised in the objection have not been considered.
WPC.No.26860/2010 3
3. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner. We have gone through Ext.P5.
We do not find any warrant for invocation of the visitorial
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 for interfering with
Ext.P5. We do not find much force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner that it was without notice
to the tenant that the Appellate Authority admitted the new
document produced by the landlords. It is obvious that the
document was produced along with I.A. No.872/2004, a copy of
which was served on the tenant. We notice that the document
produced is a document as envisaged by Section 26 of Act of
1965. When such documents are produced, the authorities under
the Rent Control Act will be bound to consider them. As to what
is the probative value of the document and as to which extent
the document can be relied on for deciding the issue will be
decided by the Appellate Authority only when the appeal itself is
taken up for final hearing.
As we do not find any warrant for invocation of the
supervisory jurisdiction, we decline jurisdiction and dismiss the
WPC.No.26860/2010 4
writ petition.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
dpk