IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (RC).No. 2073 of 2011(O) --------------------------- RCP.97/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------------- VAYALPATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL AYISUMMA, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, P.O.SREEKANDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.T.P.SAJID RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PULLOONDAYIL ABDU RAHMAN, S/O.ANDOO, AGED 51 YEARS, UNAIDA MANZIL, KUNDILAMKANDY, MANIYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, P.O.CHEKKIKULAM. 2. CHITTIKKOTH ABDU SALAM, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI AGED 36 YEARS, KAKKATT VALAPPIL, MANIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, P.O.CHEKKIKULAM THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, PULLOONDAYIL ABDU RAHIMAN, S/O.ANDOO, UNAIDA MANZIL, KUNDILAMKANDY MANIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMABA TALUK. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC)No. 2073 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, the respondent in the petition for eviction, challenges in this petition under Article 227 Ext.P2 order passed by the Rent Control Court. Ext.P2 is passed on I.A. No.335/2011 filed by the petitioner. The above I.A. was filed by the petitioner on the reason that the petitioner's husband is a necessary party to the rent control petition as it is contended by the landlords in the rent control petition that it is not the petitioner wife who is conducting business, but it is her husband who is actually conducting business. Under Ext.P2 learned Rent Control Court has dismissed the impleadment application taking the view that the application is filed after the rent control petition is listed for trial with the objective of protracting the proceedings. 2. Though various grounds have been raised challenging Ext.P2 and Sri.T.P.Sajid learned counsel for the petitioner addressed arguments based on all those grounds, we do not find any warrant for invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction of this OPRC.No.2073/2011 2 court under Article 227 on Ext.P2. The landlords' allegation was only that it is the husband of his tenant who is actually conducting business. Necessary parties to the petition for eviction are the landlord and the tenant only. Even if it is the petitioner's husband who is conducting the business such conduct can only be on behalf of the petitioner tenant. Thus, the view of the learned Rent Control Court that the petitioner's husband is not a necessary part is quite correct. At any rate, the landlords seek order of eviction against their tenant/petitioner. In that view of the matter also, there is no warrant for interfering with Ext.P2. The original petition will stand dismissed in limine. The learned Rent Control Court is directed to take up the rent control petition for trial on the day to which it is presently posted and dispose of the rent control petition in accordance with law at its earliest. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk