IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 17026 of 2009(W) ----------------------------------- RCP.15/1998 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT, PERAMBARA RCA.26/02 & RCA.39/02 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY & II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHIKODE. .................... PETITIONER(S): (LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ORIGINAL RESPONDENT/TENANT) ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREEMATHI, W/O.LATE KORU, RESIDING AT NELLIYODANKANDI HOUSE, KADIYANGAD,KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. VILASALATHIKA, D/O.LATE KORU, RESIDING AT -DO-. 3. SHYLAJA, D/O.LATE KORU, RESIDING AT -DO-. 4. ANANDLAL, S/O.LATE KORU, RESIDING AT -DO-. 5. SREEKALA NANDINI, RESIDING AT -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): (LANDLORDS/PETITIONERS IN THE RENT CONTROL PETITION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANIKANDARI ASSAIN, S/O.MAMMAD, RESIDING AT MANIKANDARI HOUSE, VELOOR AMSOM, KONGANNUR DESOM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.T.ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT THEKKE MAYERI HOUSE, MELADI AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. MEETHALE KEEPPODI ABDULLA, WP(C).No. 17026 of 2009(W) 2 S/O.MAMMED MASTER, RESIDING AT MEETHALE KEEPPODI HOUSE, MELADI AMSOM & DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS P/A HOLDER MEERANTHODI ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.IBRAYI, THIRUVALLOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOYILANDY. 3. MOONNUKANDAM CHALIL NIZAR, S/O.BAVA, RESIDING AT MOONNUKANDAM CHALIL HOUSE, MELADI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 4. MEETHALE PEEDIKAYIL MUHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.KUNHAMU HAJI, RESIDING AT MEETHALE PEEDIKAYI HOUSE, THALAKULATHUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS MUKTHIAR AGENT K.T.ABDUL GAFOOR, THEKKE MOYERI HOUSE, MELADY AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.17026 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J We do not find any warrant for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for correcting the order of the Rent Control Court directing revision petitioner/ tenant to take out notice to the landlord under third proviso to Section 11(4)(iv). Revision petitioner filed application under third proviso to Section 11 (4) (iv) complaining that the landlord has not carried out the re-construction and not inducted the tenant into the building in terms of the protection given to him under the eviction order passed under Section 11(4)(iv). The Rent Control Court directed the revision petitioner to W. P. C. No.17026 of 2009 -2- serve copy of the application on the advocate who was appearing for the landlord in the previous proceedings. The said advocate was not willing to accept the copy. Under such circumstances, the court directed the revision petitioner to take out notice to the landlord directly. Sri.A.Ranjith Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the unwillingness expressed by the landlord's counsel to receive the notice was deliberate and the objective was only to protract the proceedings indefinitely. Counsel submitted that on account of the delay, the revision petitioner is compelled to occupy a building which he has taken on lease on a much higher rent. 2. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. We are unable to find fault with the learned Rent Control Court for having directed the revision petitioner to take out notice directly to the W. P. C. No.17026 of 2009 -3- landlords since it is obligatory that the landlord should be served with notice of application before the application could be finally disposed of. The grievance of the revision petitioner that he is being compelled to pay higher rent, according to us, is taken care of by the statute itself since if it is ultimately found that the landlord has willfully neglected to carry out the reconstruction and to re-induct the tenant, the tenant will be entitled for compensation on the basis of excess rent which the tenant may be compelled to pay for another building. Rule 11 Sub Rule 4 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules is the statutory rules dealing with service of summons and notices by the Rent Control Court. The above sub rule, according to us, provides effective methods by which service of notices can be quickly effected. It is open to the revision petitioner to ensure that the landlord is W. P. C. No.17026 of 2009 -4- served with notice of the petition filed by him in any one of the modes indicated in Sub Rule 4 of Rule 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules. If an application is made by the revision petitioner in that regard, the revision petitioner will depute a special messenger for service of notice and that special messenger can effect service in any one of the modes mentioned in sub rule 4 of Rule 11. 3. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-