IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (RC).No. 2717 of 2011(O) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1416/2011,IA.1417/2011 IN RCOP.3/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER : -------------------- SURESH NAIR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, SON OF CHELLAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ATHULYA, THOLICODE P.O. PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- NAJEEB, AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF ALIKUNJU RESIDING AT ASMINA MANZIL, KOMALAMKUNNU, PUNALUR P..O PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No. 2717 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by a tenant, who is facing eviction proceedings before the Rent Control Court, Punalur by way of RC(OP) No.3/2010. The eviction ground invoked in the above Rent Control Petition is the ground under sub section (3) of Section 11. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that when the building was let out to him, the same was in a hopelessly dilapidated condition and that he only expended substantial amount and renovated the building to its present condition. The petitioner filed a commission application for appointment of a commissioner for conduct of a local inspection so that a report can be obtained as to the amounts expended by him for renovating the building, as he claims, to its present condition. The report was sought also regarding the condition of the other buildings belonging to the landlord. The commission application OPRC .No.2717/2011 2 was dismissed by the learned Rent Control Court taking the view that the report, as sought for by the petitioner, is not a relief for adjudicating the issue arising in the rent control petition. The petitioner has filed I.A. Nos. 1559/2011 and 1560/2011 for getting carbon copy of the order passed on the commission application on a urgent basis. The prayer in this writ petition is that the Rent Control Court be directed to issue carbon copy immediately and the trial of the rent control petition, which stands special listed on the 18th of this month, be put of for a short period. 2. Even though Sri. Johnson Gomez learned counsel for the petitioner made appealing submissions before us, we are yet to be convinced as to the relevancy of the commission report on the aspect sought for by the petitioner in the Rent Control petition where the cardinal issue will be as to whether the need projected by the landlord is bona fide and also as to whether the rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of any of the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 11. Nevertheless as I.A. Nos. 1559/2011 and 1560/2011 are said to be pending, we feel that limited relief can be given to the petitioner and that too OPRC .No.2717/2011 3 without issuing notice to the respondent. We are refraining from issuing notice to the respondent, as we think that issuing notice will delay the matters further. Accordingly, we dispose of this original petition issuing the following directions; i). If I.A. Nos. 1559/2011 and 1560/2011 filed by the petitioner are pending and if those I.As are in order, the learned Rent Control Court will favourably consider those I.As and issue carbon copy applied for by the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate within three days of receiving a copy of this judgment. ii). In view of the above direction, the learned Rent Control Court is directed to adjourn the trial of RC(OP) No.3/2010 to 28th instant. Issue copy of this judgment today itself. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk