IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28408 of 2008(F) -------------------------- RCP NOS. 38/2006 71/2006 & OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD. PETITIONER: DHANALAKSHMI @ DHANALAKSHMI RAJKUMAR, W/O.LATE RAJ KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, VENKITESWARA GARDEN, PIRAYIRI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA RESPONDENTS: 1. M.B.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.M.BALAKRISHNAN, 'GOKULAM', VENKITESWARA GARDEN, PIRAYIRI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. 2. K.PRADOSH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, VASANTHI NIVAS, KARNAKI NAGAR, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD. 3. HAKEEM, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED UPPA, VENKITESWARA GARDEN, PIRAYIRI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. 4. ASHRAF ALI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, VENKITESWARA GARDEN, PIRAYIRI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. 5. P.YUSUF, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. HUSSAINAR, VENKITESWARA GARDEN, PIRAYIRI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 28408 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is arrayed as the respondent/tenant in R.C.P. Nos. 71/2006 and 38/2006 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Palakkad. The allegation in the Rent Control Petition is that plaint A schedule property was purchased by the landlords from the petitioner herein and the ground floor which is shown as B schedule was let out to her and seeking eviction the rent control petition is filed. 2. According to the petitioner, the deed in question was never intended to be a sale deed but was executed only by way of a security for the loan advanced and therefore, there is no landlord-tenant relationship. According to her, since the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed that point ought to have been decided as a preliminary point before proceeding to record the evidence or to pass any orders on other issues in view of the specific bar under Section 3 of the Rent Control Act and the matter has to be referred to the civil court for consideration. W.P.(C) 28408/2008 :2: 3. Admittedly, according to her, written statement has been filed and subsequently affidavits were also filed. She even filed an additional written statement. The rent control petition is of the year 2006. Admittedly evidence is also over and the matter is posted to this day for hearing. At this belated stage we are not inclined to entertain a writ petition to interdict the court below from passing orders on the rent control petition now pending before it. At the same time, since we are not going into the merits of the contentions raised, we leave open all the contentions raised in this writ petition which the petitioner can raise in further appeal or revision as the case may be, after culmination of the proceedings. Subject to such right, we decline to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction at this stage. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-