IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2649 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH PHOENIX PROPRIETOR, AROMA ASSOCIATES NO.2, ANCHORAGE PALLIYIL LANE OFF FINE ARTS AVENUE, KOCHI - 16 BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM (THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER) 2. VALSA NAIR LAKE VIEW, OPP.KASAVUKADA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.2649 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The prayer in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a tenant of a building belonging to the second respondent, is that with the intention of compelling him to vacate the building occupied by him other than of the provisions of Act 2 of 1965, the second respondent has locked up the tenanted building. According to the petitioner, he filed Ext.P2 petition before the first respondent - Accommodation Controller on 16/01/2009 and the Accommodation Controller readily entertained the petition, conducted enquiry through the village officer and the village officer reported to the Accommodation Controller that the landlady confessed before him that she deliberately locked up the room since the petitioner tenant had not obliged to her request for surrender. Ext.P3 order is seen passed by the Accommodation Controller accepting the report on 20/01/2009. WPC.No.2649/09 2 2. The present writ petition is filed seeking immediate implementation of Ext.P3 by directing the first respondent Tahsildar to break open the locks of the building in question and thereby facilitate the petitioner's re-entry into the building. 3. We have heard Sri.George Mecheril, learned counsel for the petitioner. He persuaded us very strenuously for passage of interim order in the lines of the final prayer in the writ petition for implementation of Ext.P3 forthwith. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is unable to possess and enjoy the building in which he is carrying on business as a tenant paying rent promptly. Despite the persuasive submission of the learned counsel, we are of the view that we won't be justified in granting relief - interim or final, in this case. The first respondent has passed the order only on 20/01/2009. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P4 application seeking implementation of Ext.P3 was filed by the petitioner before the first respondent only yesterday ( 22/01/2009). 4. Learned counsel asserted before us that Ext.P4 was actually moved for orders before the first respondent yesterday (22/01/2009) at 11:00 a.m. and that the first respondent has taken up the same for orders. It is too early for the petitioner to complain that Ext.P3 has not WPC.No.2649/09 3 been implemented by the first respondent and therefore we are inclined to decline the relief on the reason that the writ petition is pre-mature. 5. Having gone through Ext.P3, what we notice is that a final order has been passed by the first respondent granting the final relief sought for by the petitioner in Ext.P2 application without notice to the second respondent landlady. The enquiry referred to in Ext.P3 is obviously an enquiry which was ordered without notice to the second respondent. Even if in the enquiry, Tahsildar has given notice to the second respondent, the first respondent is expected to hear the second respondent also, before a final order in the nature of Ext.P3 is issued. Now that the petitioner is seeking immediate implementation of Ext.P3, it is necessary that the first respondent hears the second respondent also before he passes final orders on Ext.P4. Under the above circumstances, even as we decline the relief sought for in the writ petition, we issue the following order: 1) If Ext.P4 petition has been received on the files of the first respondent on 22/01/2009 as the petitioner asserts and if no final order has been so far passed on Ext.P4 by the first respondent, the first respondent will issue a hearing notice to the second WPC.No.2649/09 4 respondent by special messenger and pass final orders on Ext.P4 in accordance with law after hearing the second respondent also. 2) The first respondent will ensure that final orders are passed on Ext.P4 immediately i.e. at any rate within two days of service of the hearing notice on the second respondent. Hearing as directed above shall be conducted on the very date mentioned in the hearing notice. 3) Even if final orders have already been passed on Ext.P4 by the first respondent, the first respondent will not issue coercive process for implementation of those final orders without giving a breathing time to the second respondent to obey the order. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE sv. WPC.No.2649/09 5