IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4939 of 2010(O) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- POURASTHYA KALDAYA SURIYANI SABHA, REPRESENTED BY K.A.JOHN, CHAIRMAN, THE BOARD OF CENTRAL TRUSTEES, CHLDEAN SYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST, S/O.KONIKKARA ANTHONY, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, AVENUE ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. BY MR. K. JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.P.B.KRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. JOS, S/O.MALIYEKKAL PYLI, EAST FORT, NEAR LOURDH CHURCH, THRISSUR. 2. REENA, D/O.MALIYEKKAL PYLI, IN DO. DO. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 4939 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails Ext.P3 order, whereby the court below has referred the matter to the Land Tribunal for consideration of the issue regarding kudikidappu. 2. Petitioner instituted O.S. 3141 of 2008 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thrissur seeking eviction of the defendants in the suit with arrears of rent. It is claimed that the suit premises is part of a line building and it was let out to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants as per document dated 1.3.1962 on a monthly rent of Rs.7.50. Later, rent was enhanced to Rs.30/-. WPC.4939/2010. 2 3. The defendants resisted the suit by pointing out that they were put in possession about hundred years back. They further contended that the monthly rent was 50 paise and the cost of construction was Rs.25/-. They asserted that their predecessor-in-interest remodeled the hut in the present form. They therefore claimed kudikidappu in respect of the property. copy of the written statement filed by the defendants is produced as Ext.P2. 4. It appears that the court below felt that the issue regarding kudikidappu did arise, and hence the matter was referred to the Land Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order, proceedings are initiated before this court. 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has not adverted to the real facts in the case and had mechanically directed the reference. It is pointed out that the definite WPC.4939/2010. 3 contention of the petitioner is that the building involved in the proceedings is part of a line building and that had to be considered by the court below. In such cases plea of kudikidappu is untenable in law. 6. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner. The court below has adverted to the question that arose for consideration and found that the claim is genuine. On going through the plaint, as of now the contention does not appear to be so clear. A reading of the written statement shows that a clear and definite plea with all necessary details has been raised. The court below cannot embark upon an enquiry into the sustainability of the claims now, in view of the embargo under Section 125(3) of the K.L.R. Act. Again if as a matter of fact, the suit property is part of a line building, it can also be raised by the petitioner before the Land Tribunal, which is to answer the reference. At any rate, it could not be said that the court WPC.4939/2010. 4 below has erred in law in directing a reference to the Land Tribunal. The court below has given reasons for doing so. According to the court below, prima facie there appears to be bonafides in the claim raised by the defendants. No jurisdictional error, illegality or impropriety could be pointed out in the order impugned. This writ petition is without merits and accordingly it is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.