IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31126 of 2009(I) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2138/2009 IN RCP.26/2007 of M.C.,PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K.MOOSA HAJI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KOYA, CHEERAMKULANGARA HOUSE, VENNIYOOR P.O., THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- N.YOUSUF, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAVARAN, NADUTHADI HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL, PUTHOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 31126 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord, petitioner in the RCP No.26/2007 on the files of the Rent Control Court Parappanangadi, is the petitioner. He impugns Ext.P1 order passed by the Rent Control Court on I.A.No.2138/2009(Ext.P1 application) submitted by him before that court. Under the impugned order, the learned Rent Control Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner, which was for return of documents Exts.A5 and A10, on the reason that the appeal filed by the landlord against the order of the Rent Control Court dismissing the RCP is pending. 2. In this writ petition under Article 227, the order is impugned on the various grounds. We are convinced on going through the averments in the writ petition and the documents placed on record along with the same and on considering the submissions of Sri.K.Jayesh Mohankumar , learned counsel for WPC.No.31126/2009 2 the petitioner, that it is a very genuine grievance which is being voiced by the petitioner. Hence even without notice to the respondent/tenant, we are inclined to grant relief to the petitioner. 3. Ext.A10 is the original of the petitioner's title document pertaining to certain immovable properties held by him. The case of the petitioner is that he wants to go over to Mecca to perform Hajj. His further case is that he requires to avail loan from the bank for the purpose of raising funds necessary for going over to Mecca and hence the properties covered by Ext.A10 are to be mortgaged in favour of the Bank. We do not find any reason as to why the pendency of the appeal filed by the landlord should be a reason for disallowing the prayers in Ext.P1. After all, the petitioner has undertaken to produce the passport (Ext.A5) again once he comes back from Mecca after performing Hajj. He has also undertaken to produce Ext.A10 title documents once the liability to the bank is discharged. Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions/orders; WPC.No.31126/2009 3 i). The order of the Rent Control Court dismissing Ext.P1 application is set aside. ii). The Rent Control Court is directed to return Exts.A5 and A10 upon the petitioner submitting an affidavit before that court undertaking to return the originals of Ext.A5 passbook as soon as he comes back from Mecca. (Tentative date of return should be shown in the affidavit). It shall also be undertaken through the same affidavit that the Rent Control Court will be informed about the details of the loan availed by the petitioner from the Bank on the security of the properties covered by Ext.A10 title document and that once the liability due to the Bank under the above loan is discharged, Ext.A10 itself will be produced before WPC.No.31126/2009 4 the Appellate Authority. Iii). Attested copies of Ext.A5 and A10 will be produced before the Rent Control Court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk