IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 19275 of 2008(T) -------------------------- RCP.133/2006 of PRL.M.C.-I, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------- VAILASSERY RAJU, 7/442, K.P.KESAVA MENON ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ K.P.SUBAIDA, NAHADA, KACHERY AMSOM, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.19275 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J In this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the tenant challenges Ext.P4 order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing an application for issuance of a commission filed by him. Ext.P3 application was filed by the tenant alleging that the landlord is in possession of his own other buildings and therefore, the landlord is not entitled to apply for eviction under sub Section 3 of Section 11 which was the substantive eviction ground invoked in the Rent Control Petition. The Rent Control Court dismissed Ext.P3 and passed Ext.P4 mainly on the reason that W. P. C. No.19275 of 2008 -2- Ext.P3 was filed at a belated stage. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.J.Omprakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.K.M.Firoz, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady. It is true that Ext.P3 application was filed by the petitioner only after the Rent Control Petition was special listed for trial. It is also true that if the petitioner was diligent, he could have filed the application earlier. But we feel that in order to enable the court to adjudicate the controversial issues arising in the case correctly, the application ought to have been allowed imposing suitable conditions by the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, setting aside Ext.P4, we allow the Writ Petition as well as Ext.P3 subject to the following conditions:- 1) The Writ Petitioner shall pay a sum of W. P. C. No.19275 of 2008 -3- Rs.1,000/- to the respondent through her Advocate Sri.K.M.Firoz and a further amount of Rs.250/- to the Kerala Mediation Centre within ten days from today and produce receipt before the Rent Control Court. 2) Upon noticing the above receipt, the Rent Control Court shall appoint an Advocate of that court as Commissioner for reporting on the various aspects mentioned in Ext.P3. Once the Commission Report is available, the case will be special listed for trial. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-