IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13878 of 2009(D)
1. POKKATT MUSTHAFA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PALAKKAL KADEEJA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :21/05/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
W.P.(C).No.13878 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
In this writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner tenant
impugns order passed by the Rent Control Court, Tirur in I.A.
No.706/1999 in R.C.P. No.24/2008. Neither a certified copy nor
even a true copy is made available. But, it is seen from
documents Exts.P1 to P6 produced by the petitioner that the
impugned order was passed by the Rent Control Court on an
application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order
of eviction passed against him. It is conceded that the above
order was passed when the petitioner tenant failed to appear
before the court on the day the case was special listed for trial.
The ground raised by him in the application was that he was laid
up and was being treated by a particular doctor. A medical
certificate issued by the said doctor was also produced. To the
application, Ext.P6 objection contending inter alia that the
petitioner’s case of having been laid up is not correct and that he
was actually carrying on business on the day the ex parte order
WPC.No.13878/2009 2
was passed was filed. Admittedly, the petitioner did not adduce
any evidence, which means that there was no evidence to
substantiate the petitioner’s case that he was laid up. The doctor
was not examined. The learned Rent Control Court
nevertheless allowed the application, imposing a condition that a
sum of Rs.5,000/- should be paid on or before 22/5/2009. It is
conceded that the petitioner is carrying on business in the
building in question. It is also conceded that the monthly
contract rent of the building is Rs.1,350/-.
2. Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the amount fixed by the court by
way of cost payable is exorbitant. We cannot agree. At any rate
we are of the view that the visitorial jurisdiction of this under
Article 227 is not be invoked to correct orders passed by the Rent
Control Court in exercise of discretion vested in it under law.
However, having regard to the appealing submissions of Sri.
Mohammed Equabal regarding the financial constraint of client,
even as we dismiss the writ petition, we direct the Rent Control
Court to permit the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.5,000/-
ordered as payable by way of cost in two equal monthly
WPC.No.13878/2009 3
instalment of Rs.2,500/- payable on 22/5/1999 and on or before
22/6/2009.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk