Benny Kuriakose vs Parameswara Kurup on 24 September, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26444 of 2009(A)


1. BENNY KURIAKOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PARAMESWARA KURUP, AGED 62 YEARS,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

                For Respondent  :SRI.RENJITH THOMAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :24/09/2009

 O R D E R
         PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
                       ------------------------
                    W.P.(C)No.26444 OF 2009
                       ------------------------

             Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

The tenant is the petitioner in this writ petition under Article

227 of the Constitution. Arrears of rent is one of the grounds of

eviction invoked against him in R.C.P. No.6/2008 filed by the

respondent. There is stiff controversy between the parties as to

what is the contract rent. According to the respondent, the

contract rent is Rs.3,000/- per mensem. But, according to the

petitioner, it is only Rs.1,500/-. The respondent produced Ext.P4

rent deed, which discloses that the contract rent is Rs.2,000/- per

month. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 is a fabricated

document and he filed Ext.P5 application for referring that

document to an expert, so that the document can be scrutinised

and a report obtained. The grievance of the petitioner is that

even before Ext.P5 is decided, the learned Rent Control Court has

special listed the RCP for trial. The prayer in this writ petition

inter alia is that the Rent Control Court be directed not to take up

the trial of RCP No. 6/2008 before Ext.P5 is decided.

WPC.No.26444/2009 2

2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. K.Jaju Babu,

learned counsel for the writ petitioner and those of Sri. Renjith

Thomas, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.Renjith Thomas

submitted that Ext.P4 is not an important document and that the

respondent does not propose to place any reliance on Ext.P4.

We record the above submission of the learned counsel

for the respondent and dispose of this writ petition without

granting any of the relief sought for in the writ petition, since

the question as to whether Ext.P4 is a genuine document will no

longer arise for consideration in the RCP, since the respondent

is not going to rely on Ext.P4 for any purpose whatsoever.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
dpk