IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 25169 of 2008(U) -------------------------- RC.10/2007 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ( P.P. ABDUL RAZAK A.V. JOSE,) CORRECTED AS P.P.ABDULRAZAK S/O. LATE P.I. ALIKOYA, RESIDING AT KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. CORRECTION CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DT. 5-9-08 IN IA.11563/08 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.GEETHA P.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HAJARABI, D/O. BIRAMVEETTIL ASSAN KOYA HAJI, RESIDING AT KALARIKANDI MALIYAKKAL, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. V.S. SHANAVAS, S/O. P.T.IMBICHI KOYA, V.S HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA, NAGARAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLER (TAHSILDAR), KOZHIKODE. R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI VTK MOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX:- EXT.P1 DATED 10-10-2007, TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENT No. 1 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 DATED 26-2-2008, TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPODNENT No. 3. EXT.P3 DATED 12-8-2008, TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 25169 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The prayers sought for in the petition are (i) to restrain the third respondent Accommodation Controller from proceeding with Ext.P1 which is a petition under Section 17(2) filed by respondents 1 and 2 who are the tenants, and (ii) to quash Ext.P3. 2. We shall first deal with the second prayer. Ext.P3 is not an order. P3 is only an intimation given by the Accommodation Controller to the petitioner with reference to an application for copy of an order dated 6-8-2008 passed by the Accommodation Controller. What is stated by the Accommodation Controller in Ext.P3 is that no order as such has been passed on 6-8-2008 and that on that date the Village Officer has been authorised to inspect the building and submit a report. Even though it is not a certified copy -2- of the order or proceedings dated 6-8-2008 which is granted to the petitioner, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance about Ext.P3, as the petitioner has been supplied with the information sought for. 3. Now we come to the prayer to injunct the third respondent from proceeding with Ext.P1. Perse the above prayer cannot be granted as under Section 17(2) of Act 2 of 1965 the Accommodation Controller is clothed with jurisdiction for deciding matters covered by Section 17. The grievance of the petitioner as voiced before us by Smt.Geetha P.Menon is that Ext.P1 petition was filed by the petitioner before the Accommodation Controller after the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Rent Control Court in an eviction petition filed by the landlord on the ground under Section 11(4)(ii) had inspected the building and submitted a report which is in favour of the landlord. If what the learned counsel submits is true, the very objective of the respondents in approaching the Accommodation Controller was oblique. But then it is for the petitioner to -3- appraise the Rent Control Court which is in seizin of the eviction petition under section 11(4)(ii) of all these matters. Rent Control Court, we are sure, will decide the rent control petition on the basis of the evidence which is available in that case including Advocate Commissioner's report submitted on the basis of the inspection conducted even prior to Ext.P1, without being influenced in any manner by any report submitted by the Village Officer before the Accommodation Controller. 4. The Accommodation Controller also, we are sure, will while deciding Ext.P1 be mindful of the contours of his jurisdiction under Section 17 of Act 2 of 1965. With the above observation, we dispose of the writ petition. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ksv/-