IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26004 of 2009(U) -------------------------- RCOP.5/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- WILSON, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, AKATHOOTT HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAN VARGHESE, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. V.P. VARKEY, VETTICKANAMKUDY HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE. 2. V.P. JOSE, S/O. PAILY, AGED 52 YEARS, VETTICKANAMKUDY HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26004 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 24thday of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The respondent/landlord has been served by special messenger. There is no appearance for him. Under challenge is Ext.P3 order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/ tenant for issuance of summons to a witness. (The Secretary of the Perumbavoor Municipality) for production of documents and also for adduction of oral evidence. The learned Rent Control Court dismissed the application on the reason that the same is filed only after the case was posted for trial and also on the reason that the point sought to be proved by examining the witness is not specifically mentioned in the petition. 2. It is submitted by Sri.K.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that it is to prove in the context of the second proviso to sub Section (3) of Section 11 that the Municipal buildings allegedly available in the locality are not affordable and that they at any rate are not affordable to the tenant, that WPC.No.26004/2009 2 summons was sought to be issued to the Municipal Secretary. 3. The above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not resisted by anybody. We, are therefore, inclined to allow the application. However, noticing that there was considerable delay on the part of the writ petitioner in the matter of filing the application, we are inclined to allow the application only by imposing conditions. The result of the writ petition is, therefore, as follows; 1). Ext.P3 is set aside and I.A.2003/2009 in RCOP No.5/2008 is allowed to the extent of issuing summons to the Secretary, Perumbavoor Municipality for the production of the document mentioned in the witness list dated 9/9/2009 and also for adduction of oral evidence with reference to the documents subject to the following conditions; i). The petitioner pays a sum of Rs.500/- as costs to the respondent either directly or through the respondent's advocate before the Perumbavoor Rent Control Court within seven days from today and produces WPC.No.26004/2009 3 receipt before the Rent Control Court, Perumbavoor. ii). The petitioner pays a sum of Rs.300/- to the Kerala Mediation Centre through its nodal officer within seven days from today and produces receipt before the Rent Control Court, Perumbavoor. 2). Once the Rent Control Court notices receipt against payment of both the amounts, that court will issue summons to the Secretary, Perumbavoor Municipality as indicated above, returnable on the date to which the Rent Control Petition stands posted. The trial of the Rent Control Petition will be taken up continuously and the RCP will be disposed at the earliest and at any rate within 30 days of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk