IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27005 of 2009(U) -------------------------- RCP.58/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- NARENDRAN, S/O.NEELAMBILLI VASU, AGED 45 YEARS, PURANATTUKARA VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAVI, S/O.KADANKARA DAMODHARAN, GANDHI NAGAR, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R1 SRI.RAJIT FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.C.No. 27005 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 is Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing an application filed by the tenant for issuance of a commission. Commission was sought for the submission of a report regarding the availability of vacant possession of buildings which are referred to in the order as the building occupied by one Sri.Sudheer Kumar and cassette shop room. The case of the petitioner is that the landlord asserted in his evidence as PW1 that the above building continues to be under the occupation of Sri.Sudheer Kumar and has not fallen vacant. It is to bring on record proper evidence regarding the truth of the matter that the commission application was filed. The learned Rent Control Court by dismissing the commission application has shut out the evidence. But, the vacancy of the buildings occupied by Sri.Sudheer Kumar as well as another building in which the landlord himself was conducting a cassette shop were relevant WPC.No. 27005/2009 2 subsequent events which were of fundamental impact on the landlord's right to obtain possession, according to the revision petitioner. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.P.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rajit, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. Drawing our attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Korah Abraham v. Varughis (2004 (2) KLT 192) to which one of us (PCK(J))was a party, Sri.P.Ramachandran argued that the court below was in error in dismissing the commission application. 3. The submissions of Sri.Ramachandran were very stiffly resisted by Sri.Rajit, who drew our attention to the judgment of another Division Bench of this court in Panoli Surendran v. Mammootty P.M. ( ILR 2009 (2) Kerala 124) to which also one of us (PCK(J)) was party. Sri.Rajit argued that subsequent events are to be brought to the notice of the trial court in accordance with the established rules of procedure. The counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B.Goyal ( AIR 2002 SC 665) and argued that on the facts of this case unless and until the alleged subsequent events of WPC.No. 27005/2009 3 cassette shop room as well as Sri.Sudheer Kumar's room falling vacant are brought to the notice of the Rent Control Court by amending the Rent Control Petition, the Rent Control Court is not bound to take notice of the subsequent events at all. 4. Having considered the rival submissions in the light of the ratio emerging from the two decisions cited before us by the learned counsel, we are of the view that this is a case where the petitioner should be allowed to bring to the notice of the Rent Control Court the alleged subsequent events of the vacancy of Sudheer Kumar's building and the cassette shop building by amending his statement of objections. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition issuing the following directions; The petitioner is permitted to raise additional pleadings regarding the alleged subsequent events of Sri.Sudheer Kumar's building as well as cassette shop building falling vacant. The additional pleadings in that context will be filed by the petitioner within 10 days from today. Once the additional pleadings so filed by the petitioner are noticed by the WPC.No. 27005/2009 4 Rent Control Court, that court will reconsider Ext.P4 application and pass fresh orders. In order to enable the Rent Control Court to do so we set aside Ext.P6. We make it clear that we have not decided by this judgment that the alleged vacancy of Sri.Sudheer Kumar's building or cassette shop building are subsequent events which will have fundamental impact on the landlord's right to evict the tenant. That is a matter for the Rent Control Court to decide. The Rent Control Court will take fresh decision on the commission application in the light of binding judicial precedents pertaining to relevancy of subsequent events in the Rent Control proceedings. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk