IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 8547 of 2009(K) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2009 IN EP 61/2002 IN RCP.3/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR RCA.6/2002 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.PREMNATH, LEKSHMY STORES, P.M.C.X/221, MARKET ROAD, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MERCY VARGHESE, W/O.LATE VARGHESE, VADAKKEKATTUR HOUSE,CHEMMANTHOOR MURI, PUNALUR VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK,KOLLAM DIST. 2. VINOD VARGHESE, S/O.LATE VARGHESE, VADAKKEKATTUR HOUSE,CHEMMANTHOOR MURI, PUNALUR VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK,KOLLAM DIST. 3. VIPIN VARGHESE, S/O.LATE VARGHESE, VADAKKEKATTUR HOUSE,CHEMMANTHOOR MURI, PUNALUR VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK,KOLLAM DIST. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.8547 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In the nature of the limited reliefs, which are being granted to the petitioner under this judgment, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. The petitioner, a tenant who is one of the respondents in RCP No.3/1994 presently pending in execution before the Munsiff Court, Punalur, is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order of delivery passed by the Execution Court. According to the petitioner, R.C.A. No.6/2002, which was filed by him before the Rent Control Appellate Authority against the eviction order, was decided in his absence and he has filed I.A. No.264/2008 an application for rehearing. The above I.A. was also dismissed by Ext.P4 and he has filed Exts.P5 and P6 applications seeking restoration of I.A.No.264/2008. Subsequently, he filed Exts.P11 and P12 conceding certain defects in Exts.P5 and P6. The version of the petitioner is that even as Exts.P5, P6, P11 and P12 are pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the Execution Court has ordered delivery. In this writ petition under WPC.No. 8547/2009 2 Article 227 the petitioner seeks the following reliefs; “i). To set aside Ext.P8 order. ii). To direct the execution court, the Rent Control Court/Munsiff Court, Punalur to stay all further proceedings in E.P. No.61/2002 pursuant to Exhibit P8 order and to adjourn the delivery of the decree schedule shop rooms till a final decision is taken on the rehearing application I.A.No.264 of 2008 in R.C.A. No.6 of 2002 as well as in Exhibit P11 and Exhibit P12 applications pending consideration before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/the 2nd additional District Judge, Kollam.” 2. We are not inclined to quash Ext.P8 in this proceedings under Article 227 since a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965. At the same time, the submission of Sri.Ram Mohan.G, learned counsel for the petitioner, that if Ext.P8 is allowed to operate even before the petitioner is able to challenge Ext.P8 or get orders in Exts.P5, P6, WPC.No. 8547/2009 3 P11 and P12, all those pending proceedings will be rendered infructuous, has some appeal. The learned counsel pointed out that while passing order of delivery under Ext.P8, the court has not fixed any date for effecting delivery which means that delivery will be effected any date without notice to the petitioner. 3. Having considered the submissions, without going into the merit of the grounds raised by the petitioner challenging Ext.P8 and the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority leading to Exts.P5, P6, P11 and P12, we dispose of this writ petition in the following terms:- i). Ext.P8 will stand stayed till 3-4-2009. ii). The Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam, which is in seizin of Exts.P5, P6, P11 and P12, is directed to hear both sides and dispose of those applications in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate before 31/3/2009. WPC.No. 8547/2009 4 This judgment will not foreclose the statutory remedy available to the petitioner against Ext.P8. Issue copy today itself. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk