IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20844 of 2008(F) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7/7/08 IN IA 2821/08 IN RCP.18/2008 of III ADDL.MUNCIFF COURT, EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER: ----------- 1. KAVERI MADHAVAN, W/O.LATE MADHAVAN AGED 75, IX/.394,VENATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. RADHA KARUNAKARAN,D/O. LATE MADHAVAN AGED 57,IX/.394,VENATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 3. SANTHA DASAN, D/O. LATE MADHAVAN AGED 49, VENATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 4. INDIRA RAJU, D/O. LATE MADHAVAN AGED 47, VENATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 5. GEETHA SREEDHARAN,D/O. LATE MADHAVAN AGED 37,VENATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 6. GOPALAKRISHNAN,S/O. LATE MADHAVAN AGED 48, VENATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 7. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN AGED 39, VENATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 8. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE MADHAVAN AGED 32, VENATTU HOUSE, CHERANELLORE VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN RESPONDENT: ------------ LAKSHMI YADO, W/O. PEECHI MUTHU, AGED 35, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI BHAVAN, POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.C.No.20844 of 2008-F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T RAMAN, J. The challenge in this writ petition is against an interim order passed by the court below in I.A.No.2821/2008 in R.C.P.No.18/2007. Petitioners are stated to be tenants. They are respondents in the rent control petition filed by the respondent herein, seeking eviction. The petitioners raised a contention disputing the title of the respondent herein. By filing an I.A. the petitioners prayed that the question regarding bona fide title be decided as a preliminary issue. The court considered the I.A. It found that in the nature of the contentions raised by the parties, even to decide the preliminary issue, it is felt necessary that evidence should be taken. True, if it is to be found that the denial of title is bonafide, then the Rent Control Court may not have any jurisdiction but has to refer the matter to the Civil Court. However, it is not an invariable rule of law that when even a preliminary issue is raised, it should be decided without taking any evidence. It will depend upon the nature of the issues raised, contention of the parties, nature of the evidence adduced, etc. In the given case, it may not be possible to W.P.(C) 20844/2008 -:2:- enter a finding on the preliminary issue straightaway without taking any evidence. As per Ext.P12 order produced in the case, the Rent Control Court merely stated that bona fide of the dispute regarding title will be considered after taking evidence. We do not find in this factual situation that an interim order of this nature could be interfered with in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the petitioner has got ample remedies available, even if the preliminary issues are decided against them after taking such evidence. Hence, we decline to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction against the interim order now passed by the court below. 2. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. We however make it clear that since the question regarding bona fide title having been raised as a preliminary issue, the Rent Control Court shall necessarily decide this issue first before entering any finding on other issues. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms