IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21791 of 2008(T)
1. KRISHNAN SUKUMARAN,KAYITHENGIL VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. O.M.AMBIKA
... Respondent
2. O.M.SUDHA,
3. O.M.USHA,
4. M.SURESH,
5. M.HARISH,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.P.SHINOD
For Respondent :SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :31/07/2008
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) NO. 21791 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
Petitioner is now facing an eviction proceeding initiated by the
respondents under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent
Control) Act. Petitioner disputed the landlord-tenant relationship and in
order to prove his case, he wanted to call for two documents – the originals
of Exts.A2 and A3, said to be counterfoils of rent receipts, from the records
in O.S.1/2000 which is pending in appeal as A.S. 135/2006 before the
District Court, Kollam, by filing Ext.P3 application. Those documents are
Exts.B13 and B14 in O.S. 1/2000, which is a suit filed by the petitioner
herein for a declaration that he is the owner of the building. Eventually, the
suit was dismissed against which the appeal is pending. The Rent Control
court, after considering the matter, dismissed Ext.P3 application holding
that there is no need to call for such documents from the appellate court
since the genuineness of the said document has already been considered in
the original suit itself.
WP(C) 21791/2008 :2:
2. Even though the matter came up for admission, we had the benefit
of hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents
also.
3. At this stage, it may not be appropriate to enter a finding one way
or other since that is an issue raised in the rent control proceedings.
Further, the Rent Control court proceeded on the basis that the prayer made
in the petition is not only to call for the documents but also to send the same
to the handwriting expert. We have gone through Exts.P3 and we find that
there is no such prayer made by the petitioner to send the documents for
examination by a handwriting expert. Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submitted that he will not make any such request for
sending the documents for examination by a handwriting expert and all that
he wants is to confront the same with the witnesses. In this background
we think principle of natural justice demands that the application Ext. P3 is
liable to be allowed.
4. Accordingly, we set aside Ext.P5 order and direct the Rent Control
Court, Kollam to call for the originals of Exts.A2 and A3 which are marked
as Exts.B13 and B14 in O.S. 1/2000 of the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam, now
pending before the District Court, Kollam and to proceed thereafter, in
accordance with law. We also direct that at the time of sending those
WP(C) 21791/2008 :3:
documents, the appellate court shall substitute the same with Photostat
copies at the expense of the petitioner herein. In case the petitioner fails to
deposit necessary amount required for substituting the Photostat copies,
necessarily, he will loose the benefit of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above. Copy of this judgment
shall be issued to both sides.
P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(JUDGE)
knc/-