IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10800 of 2009(T) -------------------------- RCP.21/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- HIRALAL, S/O.VALIYAKKAL BALARAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, THYKKAD AMSOM, BRAHMAKULAM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR (DIST). BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAMAN MENON, S/O.KOLADI MADHAVI AMMA, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, KARAKKAD DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK (PO) GURUVAYOOR. ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN FOR R SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN FOR R SRI.V.N.GOPINATHAN FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.10800 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Sri.A.T.Pius, advocate who used to appear before the rent control court for the deceased sole respondent in the rent control petition, has filed an affidavit before this court stating that when Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 applications were called before the court below on 2/1/2008, no representation was made by him or on his behalf before the court. It is stated that he was under the bona fide impression that the notices will be issued to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, who were sought to be impleaded. According to him, he was engaged by the writ petitioner- the supplemental 4th respondent in the rent control petition only after he was served with notice by the court on the strength of the impugned orders. 2. The affidavit filed in this court by Sri.A.T.Pius appears to be convincing and we are inclined to accept that affidavit. However, we are not inclined to permit the supplemental respondents other than the writ petitioner to object to Exts.P2, WPC.No.10800 of 2009 2 P3, P4 and P5, since none of them have entered appearance before the court even after receiving notice. After all, the tenancy which devolved upon the writ petitioner and his siblings is a joint tenancy and not a tenancy in common. The writ petitioner, of course, has to be afforded an opportunity to file objection to Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5. Under the above circumstances, we set aside Exts. P2, P3, P4 and P5 to the extent they pertain to the writ petitioner and direct the rent control court to permit the writ petitioner to file objections to Exts.P2, P3 and P4 and P5. If the writ petitioner files objection to those applications within two weeks from today, the rent control court will hear both sides on those applications and take fresh decision in accordance with law. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the landlord seeking permission to withdraw the present rent control petition with liberty to file fresh rent control petition at the appropriate time. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk