IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15910 of 2009(G) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS.295/2008 IN RCP.38/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.SEETHI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KADER HAJI, MANGALAM AMSOM, PUNNAMANA DESOM, P.O.MANGALAM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MUNNATH MOHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, S/O.MOIDEEN, KUNNATH HOUSE, VANIYANNOOR P.O., IRINGAVOOR AMSOM, VANIYANNOOR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) .No. 15910 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking stay of all further proceedings in R.C.P.No.38/2008 filed by the respondent/landlord against him invoking the eviction ground under Section 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965 till such time as an earlier suit O.S.No.295/2008 filed by him against the landlord is disposed of. As indicated above, the prayer made in the writ petition is akin to the relief under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. If the averments in the writ petition are correct, the writ petitioner has a good reason for not conducting business in the subject building. The allegation is that the respondent landlord by refusing to issue consent for licence and also by refusing to issue a consent letter to the KSEB in the matter of facilitating electrical service connection to the building has created a situation of preventing the petitioner from carrying on business. The suit is filed by the petitioner alleging that the LAA.No.15910/09 2 respondent is trying to evict the petitioner forcibly and seeking an injunction restraining such forcible eviction. The present allegation is that during the pendency of the suit, the RCP has been filed invoking the solitary ground of cessation of occupation. 2. We have heard Sri.K.K.Mohammed Ravuf, learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. According to Sri.Mohammed Ravuf, since Section 10 of the CPC does not in strict sense to apply to proceedings before the Rent Control court, it is necessary that this court invokes the constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and ensure that the respondent landlord is not able to reap the benefit of a situation which is of his own making. 3. Even though the submissions of Sri.Ravuf were not totally unattractive, we are of the view that the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. Eviction ground under Section 11(4)(v) is made out only when it is established by the landlord before the rent control court that the tenant has without any reasonable cause ceased to occupy the building continuously for more than six months. As already indicated, if the causes mentioned by the petitioner for not being able to LAA.No.15910/09 3 start the building are true, the same will constitute reasonable cause in the context of ground under Section 11(4)(v). It is open to the petitioner to resist the RCP by raising all available contentions and by producing relevant documents including the documents produced in this case and the documents pertaining to the suit already on file and convince the rent control court that he had a good cause for not being able to start business in the building. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. LAA.No.15910/09 4