IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP (RC).No. 1140 of 2011(O) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2839 /2010 IN RCP.12/2010 of RENT CONTROLLER( MUNSIFF COURT), TIRUR .................... PETITIONER ---------------- RARAMKANDATH USMAN KOYA, S/O. LATE KUNHIMOHAMMED HAJI, RARAMKANDATH HOUSE, P.O.TRIKKANAPURAM, VIA. THAVANNOOR-679 573, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RARAMKANDATH ABOOBACKER, RARAMKANDATH HOUSE, TRIKKANAPURAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.TRIKKANAPURAM-679 573, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN FOR R SRI.P.SAMSUDIN FOR R THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, ALONG WITH OP (RENT CONTROL)1153/11, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(R.C.) NOs. 1140 & 1153 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan, J. The petitioners are the tenants in RCP Nos.12/2010 & 13/2010 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tirur. It is submitted that the rent control petitions were listed for trial. Applications were filed by the tenants for advancing the hearing date and for the purpose of issuance of a Commission and also for reception of additional counter. The petitioner contended that those petitions were dismissed by the learned Rent Controller stating that there is no sufficient time, presumably because RCPs were listed for trial. 2. The petitioners and respondent are stated to be brothers. The claim for eviction was made under Section 11 (8), for additional accommodation of the landlord. The O.P.(R.C.) NOs. 1140 & 1153 OF 2011 -:2:- inspection by advocate Commissioner, according to the petitioners, is necessary for the purpose of collecting materials to find whether additional space is actually required for the landlord as claimed by him. Such evidence may be required for the Court also to have a proper adjudication of the matter. Hence we also feel that a Commission report is necessary. The learned counsel for the landlord also has no serious objection, evidently because a Commissioner's report may be required for the landlord also. Hence the Rent Control Court will allow the application for issuance of Commission. In that view of the matter it is just and proper that the Court below also allows the additional counter to be received, in which event, if the landlord requires, he can also make additional pleadings. The learned counsel for the landlord submits that both parties may be directed to appear before the trial court before vacation itself, so that Commission can be issued before the Court closes for summer holidays. Hence both O.P.(R.C.) NOs. 1140 & 1153 OF 2011 -:3:- parties shall appear before the Court below on 6.4.2011. The original petitions are disposed of as above. The Court below will post the RCPs to 6.4.2011. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,JUDGE. Sd/-N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/- [ True copy ] P.S. to Judge.