IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 23523 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- BABURAJAN, S/O.KARAPPAN, KAKKANAT HOUSE, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER & TAHSILDAR, CHAVAKKAD. 3. JAWAHARILAL, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR. 4. SMT.SANTHA, W/O.NARAYANAN, KAILADATH HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR. 5. SRI.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAN, VADAKKUMCHERI HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR. 6. SR.ANTONY, S/O.OUSEPH, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE KUNDALIYOOR. 7. SR.SUDIN, S/O.SANKARAN, THACHAPPULLY HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.RAJIT FOR R3 TO 7 SRI.RANJIT BABU FOR R3 TO 7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No. 23523/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 8.2.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COYP OF THE LEASE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESONDENT DATED 1.1.1992. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED IN FAVOUR OF sHRI nARAYANAN, HUSBAND OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.6.1990. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 2.6.2003. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.1992. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.1994. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2.2145/08 DATED 24.3.2008. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 8,5,08. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3.25490/08 DATED 26.6.08. TRUE COPY PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23523 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009 J U D G M E N T PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. The landlord challenges in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Exhibit P8 order passed by the Accommodation Controller, Chavakkad, under Section 13(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act (Act 2 of 1965), directing the petitioner/landlord to restore the toilet facility which the respondents/tenants claimed to have been enjoying as part of their lease holds. Also under challenge, Exhibit P10 order of the District Collector confirming Exhibit P8, in an appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2. Heard Shri George Poonthottam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajit, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr.Poonthottam would submit that the rooms in the occupation of the respondents are only five rooms in a two storied building which has got several rooms. The other rooms are in occupation of other tenants and one room is in the occupation of the landlord W.P.(C)No. 23523/08 -2- himself. The circumstance that other tenants have not raised any complaint regarding the closing down of the toilet facility gives credence to the landlord's case that the toilet facility has not been extended to the tenants and was exclusively for the landlord. The counsel further submitted that against the respondents, eviction petitions under the Rent Control Act had been instituted and they have filed the petitions before the Accommodation Controller only three years after the RCP was instituted. The petition before the Accommodation Controller was filed only as a counter blast to the RCP, according to the counsel. 3. Mr.Rajit would submit that though it is true that the rent deed executed by the tenants in favour of the landlord do not reveal the existence of a toilet, the Accommodation Controller became convinced in a local inspection conducted by him that the toilet facility was being enjoyed not only by the landlord but also by the tenants. Some of the tenants have lady staff and the toilet facility is indispensable for them. There is no warrant to interfere with Exhibit P8 or Exhibit P10, especially, since they are on the basis of materials including report based on a local W.P.(C)No. 23523/08 -3- inspection. 4. Having regard to the contours of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it has to be noticed that we do not sit in appeal against the orders passed by the authorities below. Our enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision making process adopted by those authorities is proper. We find that the statutory authority- Accommodation Controller on receiving a serious complaint under Section 13(2) that the amenities which were being enjoyed by them have been cut off by the landlord with the intention to evict them conducted an inspection with notice to both sides. It is on the basis of the report prepared in such a local inspection, that Exhibit P8 has been passed by the Accommodation Controller. Having regard to the probabilities of the matter, it is likely that the tenants were permitted to make use of the only toilet facility which was available in the double storied building, substantial portions of which had been let out to various tenants. We do not find any warrant for Exhibit P8 or Exhibit P10 and the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, we direct the Rent W.P.(C)No. 23523/08 -4- Control Court, Chavakkad to special list the Rent Control petition filed by the petitioner, for trial in the earliest available special list and dispose of the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that the Rent Control Court shall not be influenced in any manner by Exhibit P8 or Exhibit P10 or our own judgment confirming Exhibits P8 and P10, while taking a decision in the R.C.P. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn