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 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20925 of 2009(I) -------------------------- RCP.113/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.KURUPPAM VEETTIL KILLIYATH ABOOBACKER, PAVARATTY DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SIDHIQUE, S/O.MUHAMMED, KALLINGAL HOUSE, AZHIKODE DESOM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No.20925 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the tenant impugns Exts.P10 and P11 orders passed by the Rent Control Court, Thrissur. By Ext.P10, the learned Rent Control Court dismissed an application filed by the tenant for calling for the original of Ext.P5 lease deed relied on by the landlord for maintaining the Rent Control Petition in which eviction was sought on the ground of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of own occupation and under Ext.P11, the Rent Control Court granted leave to the landlord for withdrawing from the Rent Control Petition to the extent it is filed on the ground of arrears of rent. 2. The bone of contention between the parties is the genuineness of the lease deeds relied on by the parties . According to the landlord, Ext.P5 is the genuine lease deed executed by the tenant and Ext.P5 reveals a monthly rent of Rs. 51,000/-. According to the WPC.No.20925/09 Page numbers tenant, the genuine lease deed is Ext.P2, a unilateral rent deed executed by the tenant disclosing a monthly rental of Rs. 10,000/-. Criminal cases are pending before the local Magistrate Courts as C.C.No.231/2006 and M.P.No.7980/2007 at the instance of the landlord and the tenant. So also, at the instance of the landlord, a suit - O.S.No.636/2007 is pending before the local Subordinate Judge's Court. It is not disputed that both before the Magistrate Court and before the learned Subordinate Judge's Court, the issue as to which is the genuine lease deed and as to whether any one of the lease deeds is a fraudulent one is under serious consideration. 3. The application leading to Ext.P10 was filed by the tenant only when the Magistrate Courts issued summons to the tenant who was the defacto complainant in M.P.No.7980/2007. The above application was resisted by the landlord on the reason that the intension behind the tenant's filing that application was to protract the proceedings for eviction to the maximum. It was alleged that upon the original of the document Ext.P5 being summoned , the trial of the criminal cases will be stalled and that the tenant will seek an WPC.No.20925/09 Page numbers application for referring the documents for forensic scrutiny which will lead to delay in the matter of final disposal of the RCP. 4. The Rent Control Court has passed Ext.P10 mainly on the reason that certified copies of both Exts.P2 and P5 are available before the court and therefore it is not necessary to call for the originals of Ext.P5 even if those two documents ( Exts.P2 and P5) are relevant documents for adjudicating the issues arising in the Rent Control Petition. That court also noticed that Ext.P11 has already been passed permitting the landlord to withdraw from the case for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and therefore Exts.P2 and P5 have become irrelevant as far as the trial of the RCP is concerned. Under Ext.P11 the court below has permitted the landlord to withdraw from the RCP to the extent it pertains to the ground of arrears of rent. 5. We have heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner/tenant and Sri.K.P.Sreekumar, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer submitted that Ext.P5 is a fraudulent document and if original of Ext.P5 is summoned and thereafter referred for forensic scrutiny, it will WPC.No.20925/09 Page numbers become established that the landlord has played fraud on the court as well as on the tenant. Fraud is so unholy that it will vitiate even the most solemn judicial and even ecclesiastical proceedings. A finding that the landlord has played fraud will dis-entitle the landlord even to an order of eviction under Section 11(3). Therefore, Ext.P11 has caused serious prejudice to the tenant in as much as it prevents the tenant from establishing before the Rent Control Court that the landlord has played fraud not only on the court, but also on the tenant. 6. Sri.K.P. Sreekumar, learned counsel for the respondent would argue that it is always open to the landlord to withdraw from the prayer for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. The tenant decided to withdraw from that prayer only on realising that allowing the controversy over the genuineness of Ext.P2 and P5 to continue will result in delay in the matter of final disposal of the claim of eviction under Section 11(3) which according to the learned counsel is a bonafide one. Since Section 11(2)(b) is no longer invoked , Exts.P2 and P5 are no longer relevant since the status of the tenant as a tenant of the petition schedule building under the landlord is not in dispute. WPC.No.20925/09 Page numbers According to the learned counsel, Ext.P5 is the genuine document and Ext.P2 is the fraudulent document. Learned counsel highlighted in this context the circumstance that there are no attestors to Ext.P3 produced by the tenant before the court, while the original of Ext.P5 contains attestation by two witnesses. According to Sri.Sreekumar, no prejudice is going to be caused to the writ petitioner/tenant by Ext.P11. It will still be open to the tenant to establish both before the Magistrate Court as well as before the Sub Court that the rent deed relied on by him is a genuine one and that Ext.P5 relied on by the landlord is a fraudulent one. The question as to which of the documents is genuine and which is fraudulent cannot have any relevance in the present RCP in which eviction is sought only on the ground of bonafide own occupation. 7. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions. As already indicated, it is the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution which is invoked by the tenant. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is a visitorial jurisdiction which is invoked only very sparingly. The parameters for exercise of that jurisdiction are well known. We have guaged Exts.P5 and P2 by WPC.No.20925/09 Page numbers those parameters. We do not find warrant for invocation of supervisory jurisdiction. 8. But as far as the present rent control petition is concerned the explanation offered by the landlord for withdrawing from the prayer for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent is a plausible one. It is well known that any eviction order passed on the ground of arrears of rent in terms of Section 11(2)(b) of the Rent Control Act is tentative and is liable to be vacated under Section (2)(c) on making deposits. When the landlord submits that allowing the controversy regarding the genuineness of Exts.P2 and P5 will result in protraction of the rent control proceedings, where the substantial eviction ground under Section 11(3) is also invoked and that it is to avoid the delay in the matter of considering the landlord's prayer for eviction on that substantial ground (which according to the landlord is a strong and bona fide ground) that it was decided to withdraw from the prayer under Section 11(2)(b), we are not prepared to blame the Rent Control Court for having passed Ext.P1. The Writ Petition is dismissed. . However, in deference to the WPC.No.20925/09 Page numbers request of Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer that some time may be given to the tenant for getting ready for trial in the RCP, we direct the trial court to adjourn the trial of the RCP in special list itself to the earliest possible date. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. WPC.No.20925/09 Page numbers