IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31496 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.679/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM ............................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SOJAN JOSEPH, SON OF TYPE, AGED 45 YEARS, VALLAMATTOM HOUSE, THOTTAKKARA KARA, ARAKKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) SRI.V.J.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SOUTHERN FISHERIES CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS. DR.E.T.KURAKOSE, SON OF THOMMAN, AGED 81 YEARS, NETHRA BHAVAN, KARAKKATTU ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. DR.THOMAS KURIAKOSE, SON OF E.T.KURAKOSE, AGED 48 YEARS, NETHRA BHAVAN, KARAKKATTU ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31496 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.679 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit is for realisation of arrears of rent, and the respondent is the plaintiff. A previous suit had already been decreed in favour of the respondent. The decision in that suit is pending in appeal was canvassed by the petitioner to stay the trial of the present suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Munsiff was not inclined to accept the case canvassed for stay of the trial of the suit and the application moved by the petitioner was dismissed vide Ext.P4 order. Correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged in the writ petition. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in rent W.P.(C).No.31496 OF 2009 Page numbers control proceedings, orders have been passed for vacating him from the building, allowing the application moved by the respondent/landlord. Quantification of arrears of rent however is left open for consideration in proceedings under Section 112(c) of the Rent Control Act. The rate of rent is disputed by the tenant and finality thereof can be entered into only by a decision in the R.F.A No. 730 of 2008 which has been filed against the decision in the previous suit is the submission of the counsel. So much so in the given facts of the case, according to the counsel, the application moved under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the trial of the present suit should have been allowed by the court below. I am not impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel. The rent control proceedings ordering eviction has become final and the previous suit in relation to arrears of rent for a period W.P.(C).No.31496 OF 2009 Page numbers anterior to the claim made in the present suit had been decreed in favour of the respondent in a previous suit. That being so, I find no impropriety in the order of the court below in declining the request for stay of the present suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv