IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 49 of 2010(O) ----------------------- IA NO.2185/2010 IN OS.427/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ BASHEER, S/O.KASSIM, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT SABI MANSION, MAMOM, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.K.V.P.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ABBAS, S/O.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HUSSAIN VILLA, MARKET ROAD, ATTINGAL-695 101. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.49 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Plaintiff in O.S.No.427 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Attingal is the petitioner before me. He sued respondent for recovery of rent arrears in respect of the building entrusted to the latter on 01.09.2003 allegedly on rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. According to the petitioner, respondent did not pay the rent right from 01.09.2003 itself and out of the total amount of Rs.1,53,000/- due by way of rent arrears respondent deposited only Rs.60,000/- in the rent control proceedings between the parties. Balance amount payable is Rs.93,000/- with interest and hence the suit. Respondent resisted the suit contending that there is no rent arrears and that he had paid certain amount by way of advance. Now the case is coming up for trial in the list on 27.09.2010. In the meantime, the rent control proceeding initiated by petitioner for eviction of respondent on the ground of rent arrears and bonafide need for own occupation was dismissed by the Rent Control Court. Petitioner took up the matter before Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority while confirming the order as to rent arrears reversed the finding of Rent Control Court regarding bonafide need. Both sides filed revisions in this Court challenging the finding of appellate authority. Learned counsel states that revision filed by the respondent-tenant against order under Section 11(3) of the Rent Control Act (for short, “the Act”) has been dismissed by this Court but the revision filed by petitioner-landlord against OP(C) No.49/2010 2 rejection of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act has not so far been disposed of. According to the learned counsel, if in the present situation parties go for trial learned Munsiff will be constrained to accept finding of the Rent Control Appellate Authority regarding rent arrears which is under challenge in this Court in revision and that may result in a dismissal of the suit. Petitioner therefore wants trial of the suit to be stayed until decision in R.C.R.No.202 of 2009 pending in this Court. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the dispute regarding rent arrears in respect of the building is pending decision in this Court I think it appropriate to direct learned Munsiff to postpone trial of the suit for a period of three months so that within that time petitioner can pursue R.C.R.No.202 of 2009 pending before this Court and get it disposed of. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of directing the learned Munsiff to postpone trial of O.S.No.427 of 2007 to a day after three months from this day. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks