IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26055 of 2008(B) -------------------------- RCP.27/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KRISHNA JANAKI, W/O.LATE KAPPANA MURALEEDHARAN, RESIDING AT BLOCK 7, S1, CHINTHAVALAPPU FLATS, RAM MOHAN ROAD, CALICUT-4. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M.M. SAIFUDHEEN, T.M.HOUSE, THAYINERI, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.M.JAMAL, PMC XXII/637, KMK COMPLEX, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No.26055 of 2008-B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T J U D G M E N T RAMAN, J. The petitioner is challenging an order sustaining objection raised by the respondents while PW.2 was examined in the case. 2. Petitioner is the landlord who sought eviction on the ground of sub lease. A Commissioner was deputed to inspect the property and he has submitted a report. The Commissioner was examined as PW.2. The petitioner, in order to identify the person in the tenanted premises, has taken out the Commission. During the examination of the Commissioner, a question was put to him with reference to the voters list as to the person who made representations before him at the time of his visit was the person in the voters list. But this question was not allowed to by the court below on the objection raised by the tenant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only way to prove that the original tenants have sub leased the scheduled room in favour of the second respondent is by way of putting question to the Commissioner who was deputed and who had seen the person there. Otherwise, there W.P.(C).NO.26055/2008 -:2:- may be identity dispute subsequently, which cannot be resolved, unless such question is permitted to be put to the Commissioner. We see some force in this contention. However, at this stage, we do not think we should interfere with the orders passed. In case the tenant disputes the identity of the alleged sub leasee or his presence at the time when the Commissioner inspected, it is always open to the petitioner to apply for recalling the report of the Commissioner. With the above liberty, this writ petition is closed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms