IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 OP (RC).No. 1971 of 2011(O) --------------------------- RCP.8/1996 of M.C.,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. VALSAMMA KURIAN, RESIDING AT MANKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, AAZHOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE. 2. ABY M.KURIAN, RESIDING AT MANKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, AAZHOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE. 3. ANAND M.KURIAN, RESIDING AT MANKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, AAZHOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT.SABINA JAYAN SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MINI VARGHESE RESIDING AT OTTAMOOTTIL HOUSE, MYLAPRA MURI, MYLAPRA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P(RC).No. 1971 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this original petition under Article 227, the petitioners/landlords challenge Exts.P5 and P6, under which the learned Rent Control Court dismissed the application filed by them for enlargement of time for filing the amendment application as directed by the High Court and the application for condonation of delay caused in the matter of filing the amendment application. Exts.P5 and P6 have been passed on the reason that the time for filing the amendment application was fixed by the High Court under its order in RCR No.175/2006 and hence the Rent Control Court lacks in power to enlarge the time. The reasoning of the learned Rent Control Court adopted in Exts.P5 and P6 is quite reasonable. But, we notice that the delay caused in the matter of filing the amendment application was just one day. 2. One of the submissions of Mr.Jacob P.Alex learned counsel for the respondent was that instead of invoking the OPRC.No. 1971/2011 2 supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227, the petitioners should have sought for enlargement of time before this court rather than moving the Rent Control Court for the above purpose. The above submission has merit. Nevertheless, we notice that the delay on the part of the petitioners was just one day and we are inclined to grant relief to the petitioners in the present proceedings. Hence, we dispose of the original petition issuing the following directions. i). Exts.P5 and P6 are set aside and the delay caused in the matter of filing of the amendment petition by the petitioners is condoned. ii). The learned Rent Control Court is directed to take up Ext.P2 amendment petition, invite objections from the respondent to the same and take a decision on the same in accordance with law. If Ext.P2 comes to be allowed, the respondent should be allowed to raise counter pleadings in the Rent Control Petition. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk