IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9951 of 2008(I) ------------------------- (RCA.34/2003 AND RCA.37/2003 of DISTRICT COURT/R.C.A.A., MANJERI ) .................... PETITIONER: ------------ ALIKKAL SUHARA, WIDOW OF ARANGODAN ZAINUDHEEN, AGED 45 YEARS, ANGADIPURAM AMSOM, PARIYAPURAM DESOM, PERINTHALMANN TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT: ------------- CHELAKODAN KUNHIMOHAMMED, SON OF MOIDUNNI, 68 YEARS, ANGADIPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 9951 OF 2008-I ----------------------------------------- Dated 25th March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is one of the supplemental appellants in R.C.A. No.34/2003, pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Manjeri. She is one of the respondents in R.C.A.No.37/2003, pending before the very same authority. Both the appeals arise out of the order in R.C.P.No.1/2000 before the Rent Control Court, Perinthalmanna. The petitioner submits, because of the delay in disposing of those appeals, she and her family members are seriously prejudiced. Therefore, this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed, seeking a direction to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Manjeri to consider and dispose of the above appeals as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. 2. The disposal of cases by lower courts will depend upon the pendency of cases before them. Normally, the judicial officers go by the WPC 9951/2008 2 seniority of the cases and dispose of them. The petitioner cannot claim that her case should be taken up out of turn. She has also to wait in the queue. If the turn of her cases has already reached and they are being unnecessarily adjourned at the instance of the respondent tenant, she can move the Rent Control Appellate Authority for early hearing of the matter. Admittedly, she has not done that. Therefore, this writ petition cannot be entertained. We are not justified in tinkering with the roster of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and her right to move the appellate authority for early hearing of the appeals. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/