IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10287 of 2010(I)
1. DR.A.V.THARU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KAMALAM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :26/03/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. P. C. No.10287 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J
Under challenge in this Writ Petition filed by
the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution
who is facing proceedings for eviction by way of
RCP.9/08 before the Rent Control Court,
Wadakanchery is Ext.P3. Under Ext.P3, an
application filed by the petitioner for setting aside
the Advocate Commissioner’s Report and another
application filed by him for examining the
Commissioner for deciding the application to set
aside the Commissioner’s Report stands
dismissed. Sri.P.Ramachandran, the learned
W. P. C. No.10287 of 2010 -2-
counsel for the petitioner took us to the full text of
Ext.P3 order and submitted that Ext.P3 order
results in serious prejudice to the petitioner. We
do not think so. The RCP is filed against the
petitioner invoking the grounds under sub section
3 of section 9. It seems that the Commissioner
has filed a report which is to the effect that the
claim of the petitioner/tenant that he is making
use of the entire area in the petition scheduled
premises for conducting his nursing home is not
correct. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, such a report is likely to prejudice the
mind of the Rent Control Court when the RCP
itself is taken up for decision. We do not think so.
We are sure that the Rent Control Court will
decide the Rent Control Petition in favour of the
W. P. C. No.10287 of 2010 -3-
landlord only if the evidence adduced by the
landlord is convincing and the same establishes
that the need urged by the landlord is a bona fide
one. We are also sure that all valid and relevant
contentions raised by the tenant will also be
enquired into by the Rent Control Court. The
Commission Report will be just one item of
evidence in the case. The Commissioner can be
cited as a witness and he will certainly get the
opportunity when the RCP is listed for trial. We
notice that the Rent Control Court itself has under
Ext.P3 observed that examination of the
Commissioner can be deferred to the stage of
trial. The visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution is invoked only in
exceptional circumstances. We do not think that
W. P. C. No.10287 of 2010 -4-
Ext.P3 can be branded as an order warranting
invocation of visitorial jurisdiction. We dismiss this
Writ Petition. However, we make it clear that the
Rent Control Court will be bound to permit the
petitioner to cite the Advocate Commissioner as a
witness for the purpose of cross examination, if
the Commissioner is not cited as a witness by the
landlords.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
C. K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
kns/-
