IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21791 OF 2008(T) RCP.55/2005 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM PETITIONER: KRISHNAN SUKUMARAN,KAYITHENGIL VEEDU MEENATHUCHERRY, KAVANAD, KOLLAM BY ADVS. M/S. G.P.SHINOD RAM MOHAN.G. & MANU V. RESPONDENTS: 1. O.M.AMBIKA KODIYIL VEEDU,MEENATHUCHERRY, KAVANAD, KOLLAM (FROM KAYITHENGIL VEEDU -DO-) 2. O.M.SUDHA, KODIYIL VEEDU,MEENATHUCHERRY, KAVANAD, KOLLAM (FROM KAYITHENGIL VEEDU -DO-) 3. O.M.USHA, KODIYIL VEEDU,MEENATHUCHERRY, KAVANAD, KOLLAM (FROM KAYITHENGIL VEEDU -DO-) 4. M.SURESH, KODIYIL VEEDU,MEENATHUCHERRY, KAVANAD, KOLLAM (FROM KAYITHENGIL VEEDU -DO-) 5. M.HARISH, KODIYIL VEEDU,MEENATHUCHERRY, KAVANAD, KOLLAM (FROM KAYITHENGIL VEEDU -DO-) BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 TO 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 21791 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is now facing an eviction proceeding initiated by the respondents under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. Petitioner disputed the landlord-tenant relationship and in order to prove his case, he wanted to call for two documents - the originals of Exts.A2 and A3, said to be counterfoils of rent receipts, from the records in O.S.1/2000 which is pending in appeal as A.S. 135/2006 before the District Court, Kollam, by filing Ext.P3 application. Those documents are Exts.B13 and B14 in O.S. 1/2000, which is a suit filed by the petitioner herein for a declaration that he is the owner of the building. Eventually, the suit was dismissed against which the appeal is pending. The Rent Control court, after considering the matter, dismissed Ext.P3 application holding that there is no need to call for such documents from the appellate court since the genuineness of the said document has already been considered in the original suit itself. WP(C) 21791/2008 :2: 2. Even though the matter came up for admission, we had the benefit of hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents also. 3. At this stage, it may not be appropriate to enter a finding one way or other since that is an issue raised in the rent control proceedings. Further, the Rent Control court proceeded on the basis that the prayer made in the petition is not only to call for the documents but also to send the same to the handwriting expert. We have gone through Exts.P3 and we find that there is no such prayer made by the petitioner to send the documents for examination by a handwriting expert. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that he will not make any such request for sending the documents for examination by a handwriting expert and all that he wants is to confront the same with the witnesses. In this background we think principle of natural justice demands that the application Ext. P3 is liable to be allowed. 4. Accordingly, we set aside Ext.P5 order and direct the Rent Control Court, Kollam to call for the originals of Exts.A2 and A3 which are marked as Exts.B13 and B14 in O.S. 1/2000 of the Munsiff's Court, Kollam, now pending before the District Court, Kollam and to proceed thereafter, in accordance with law. We also direct that at the time of sending those WP(C) 21791/2008 :3: documents, the appellate court shall substitute the same with Photostat copies at the expense of the petitioner herein. In case the petitioner fails to deposit necessary amount required for substituting the Photostat copies, necessarily, he will loose the benefit of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Copy of this judgment shall be issued to both sides. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-