IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No.19610 of 2009 (U) ---------------------------------- O.S.112/2008 OF THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. N.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, S/O KELY, AGED 72 YEARS, GROCERY TRADER, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. 2. VANIYANKUNI ACHUTHAN, S/O POKKAYI, AGED 65 YEARS, TRADER, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. 3. P. PRASAD, S/O ACHU, AGED 33 YEARS, ELECTRICIAN, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. 4. MAVILA NANU, S/O KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 58 YEARS, VEGETABLE TRADER, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. 5. K. DINESHAN, S/O KRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, TAILOR, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. 6. U.K.KRISHNAN, S/O KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 63 YEARS, GROCERY TRADER, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. 7. SUMA VIJAYAN, W/O VIJAYAN, P.O NIRMALAGIRI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN WP(C).No.19610 of 2009 (U) 2 RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. PUSHPALATHA, D/O (LATE) PANCHALAKSHMI, AGED 42 YEARS, 'OM' NIVAS, P.O., NIRMALAGIRI. 2. RAJEEV, S/O (LATE) PANCHALAKSHMI, AGED 40 YEARS, BUSINESS, 'OM' NIVAS, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. 3. BINDU, D/O (LATE) PANCHALAKSHMI, AGED 38 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, 'OM' NIVAS, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. 4. RAGESH, S/O (LATE) PANCHALAKSHMI, AGED 36 YEARS, BUSINESS, 'OM' NIVAS, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. 5. MALAPPILAYIL MANOHARAN, S/O ACHU, AGED 42 YEARS, PHOTOGRAPHER, P.O. NIRMALAGIRI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.19610 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioners, who are respondents respectively in RCP Nos.7/07, 8/07, 09/07, 51/07, 52/07, 53/07 and 54/07, is that the trial and all further proceedings in RCP Nos.7/07, 8/07, 09/07, 51/07, 52/07, 53/07 and 54/07 be stayed till the disposal of O.S.112/08 of the Sub Court, Thalassery. It is stated that the above suit is instituted by the petitioners seeking specific performance of a contract for sale of the buildings which are subject matter of the RCPs entered into between the present petitioners and the previous W. P. C. No.19610 of 2009 -2- landlady i.e. the previous owner of the building. 2. It is their case that in violation of agreements between the present petitioners, the previous landlady has assigned the buildings to the petitioners in the RCPs. The suit is pending and the case is that if the RCPs are permitted to be tried during the pendency of the suit, the same will render the suit infructuous. Alternatively, it is also urged in the Writ Petition that in all the RCPs, the title of the petitioner in the RCPs has been denied bona fide and therefore, the Rent Control Court should not be permitted to go ahead with the trial of the RCPs before the question whether the denial of title is bona fide is examined as a preliminary issue. 3. We have considered the averments in the Writ Petition and we have heard the submissions of W. P. C. No.19610 of 2009 -3- Sri.P.U.Shailajan, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners who was permitted to address us extensively. We do not think that invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is justified in this present case. Nothing prevents the Writ Petitioners from obtaining appropriate orders from the Civil Court in O.S. No.112/08 which is said to be pending at their instance. So also nothing prevents the petitioners from requesting the Rent Control Court to raise the question whether the Writ Petitioner's denial of the title of the petitioner in the RCP is a bona fide one as a preliminary question so that before the RCP is taken up for trial that question is answered. 4. We do not have the advantage of perusing the pleadings raised by the parties in the RCP. We are sure that if pleadings disclose specify denial of the title W. P. C. No.19610 of 2009 -4- of the petitioner in the RCP i.e. denial of the existence of a landlord/tenant relationship between the parties in the RCP, the Rent Control Court will formulate preliminary question in all RCPs as to whether such denial is a bona fide one. 5. We dispose of this Writ Petition declining the reliefs sought for, however directing the Rent control Court to have due regard to sub Section 1 of Section 11 before the Trial of the RCPs is taken up. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-