IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13878 of 2009(D) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2009 IN IA.706/2009 IN RCP.24/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- POKKATTU MUSTHAFA, S/O. MOOSAKKUTTY, THANALUR AMSOM DESOM, POST PONMUNDAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PALAKKAL KADEEJA, W/O. V.P.KUNHIMARAKKAR HAJI, PONMMUNDAM AMSOM DESOM, POST PONMUNDAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/5 /2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.13878 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner tenant impugns order passed by the Rent Control Court, Tirur in I.A. No.706/1999 in R.C.P. No.24/2008. Neither a certified copy nor even a true copy is made available. But, it is seen from documents Exts.P1 to P6 produced by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed by the Rent Control Court on an application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order of eviction passed against him. It is conceded that the above order was passed when the petitioner tenant failed to appear before the court on the day the case was special listed for trial. The ground raised by him in the application was that he was laid up and was being treated by a particular doctor. A medical certificate issued by the said doctor was also produced. To the application, Ext.P6 objection contending inter alia that the petitioner's case of having been laid up is not correct and that he was actually carrying on business on the day the ex parte order WPC.No.13878/2009 2 was passed was filed. Admittedly, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence, which means that there was no evidence to substantiate the petitioner's case that he was laid up. The doctor was not examined. The learned Rent Control Court nevertheless allowed the application, imposing a condition that a sum of Rs.5,000/- should be paid on or before 22/5/2009. It is conceded that the petitioner is carrying on business in the building in question. It is also conceded that the monthly contract rent of the building is Rs.1,350/-. 2. Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount fixed by the court by way of cost payable is exorbitant. We cannot agree. At any rate we are of the view that the visitorial jurisdiction of this under Article 227 is not be invoked to correct orders passed by the Rent Control Court in exercise of discretion vested in it under law. However, having regard to the appealing submissions of Sri. Mohammed Equabal regarding the financial constraint of client, even as we dismiss the writ petition, we direct the Rent Control Court to permit the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.5,000/- ordered as payable by way of cost in two equal monthly WPC.No.13878/2009 3 instalment of Rs.2,500/- payable on 22/5/1999 and on or before 22/6/2009. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk