IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 3076 of 2002(N) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MURALI HOTELS AND RESORTS(PVT) LTD., GURUVAYOOR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR V.V.MURALIDHARAN, VEPPIL, VELAPPAN, AGED 45, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ROSA, W/O.C.T.LAZAR, EMPIRE FABRICS, WEST NADA GURUVAYOOR, CHUNKATH HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAPPADY, THRISSUR DIST. (DIED) 2. THARIYAN, S/O.C.T.LAZAR, .DO. .DO. 3. KOCHUVARKEY, S/O.CHUNKATH THARUTHUNNY, .DO. .DO. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R3 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON 12/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.5476/2002 IN O.P. NO.3076/2002 DISMISSED: SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) 12.8.2008 SD/-(V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT OF A COMMISSIONER AS I.A. NO.3881/2001 DT.9.8.2001. P2: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF PETITION I.A. NO.3881/2001 DT.9.8.2001. P3: TRUE OCPY OF ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED MUNSIFFS IN I.A. NO.3881/2001 IN RCP 28/2000 DT.23.10.2001. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... O.P. No.3076 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order whereunder the Rent Control Court rejected an application for issuance of a commission on the ground that there is already a commission report pertaining to the same building in a rent control eviction petition filed in 1996. Counsel for the petitioner contended that this is a fresh case and unless current facts are not brought to the notice of the Rent Control Court through a fresh commission report, case cannot be effectively decided. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the contesting respondents also. 2. We do not think the stand of the Rent Control Court is correct because a case has to be decided with reference to facts relevant currently i.e. at the time of filing of the petition. In fact even developments subsequent to the filing of application can be taken note of by the Rent Control Court at the time of passing the order. The O.P. is accordingly allowed vacating the impugned order with direction to the Rent Control Court to send a commission in terms of request of the applicant. The 2 respondents are free to bring to the notice of the Commissioner whatever facts they consider relevant for the purpose of the case and to file objection to the Commissioner's report, if they so desire. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms