IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33487 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SMT. SHAMSHAD.M.H. AGED 50 D/O. MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, PROPRITRIX, NASHA MUSIC TRONICS ROOM NO.4339/39 OF COCHIN CORPORATION, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-16. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT: --------------- DR. P.A. PAUL AGE 55, S/O. ANTHAPPAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, MURIKKIRI ROAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-16 by ADV. SRI.C.T.JOSEPH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = = W.P.(C) NO. 33487 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is a tenant, who is faced with an eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. In execution of the order passed by the rent control Court, E.P. 330/2009 was filed. Summons was issued on 12.8.2009 to show cause as to why the order shall not be executed. The case was posted to 12.10.2009. Thereafter, notice was served by affixture and when the proceedings were continued petitioner approached this Court inter alia contending that she had preferred an appeal along with a petition for condoning the delay and also filed a stay petition before the appellate authority; but the appellate authority has issued notice pending consideration of the delay condonation application and thereafter the stay application and in case she is physically evicted from the tenanted premises, that will cause undue hardship. 2. In the writ petition, it is specifically urged that the affixture was done without any witness and the business premises is situated in an WP(C) 33487/2009 2 important locality of Ernakulam city and proper service is not there by affixture. These allegations being supported by an affidavit and considering the balance of convenience, notice was ordered and granted a stay. We have called for the records and verified the same. From the records it appears that the Process Server returned the summons with the endorsement that the business premises of the tenant remained closed and on enquiry, people of the neighbourhood stated that now-a-days petitioner's business premises is not opened. Thereafter, the court ordered notice to be served by affixture. It was reported by the Process Server that affixture has been effected but nobody came forward to sign as a witness and hence he reported the matter after affixture. The petitioner has filed a detailed objection regarding the manner of service of notice. From the records available, it cannot be said that without taking further evidence this way or the other and we cannot accept what has been stated in the writ petition without further evidence. Therefore, the objection will be considered by the trial court in due course if an occasion arises. We say so because now that the matter has been admitted by the appellate authority and granted stay, possibly the proceedings will have to be continued subject to the orders passed by the appellate authority. WP(C) 33487/2009 3 In the circumstances, this writ petition at this stage has become infructuous. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-