IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12725 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- RCP.35/1998 OF MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD ................................................. PETITIONER: ------------------ JOHN, S/O.CHERUVATHOOR VARGHESE, IRIMBRANELLOOR AMSOM, ERAVUR DESOM,CHAVAKKADU TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. HAMEED HAJI, S/O.VETTIKANDAYIL ABOOBAKAR, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. MOIDUNNY, S/O.VETTIKANDAYIL ABOOBAKARA, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. VASUDEVAN, S/O.VAKADDEKKALTHIL UNNI AMMA KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPILLY TALUK. 4. PRABHAKARAN, S/O.VADAKKEKALATHIL LAKSHMI AMMA, KADAVALLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 5. MUHAMMED,S/O.RAKYAMMARAKKAR VEETTIL SAITHALI, THEKKAD DESOM, AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.12725 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondents. The respondents are the land lords. They claimed eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Eviction was allowed under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The petitioner surrendered vacant possession of the building. But the land lords did not occupy it. Therefore, he produced the key before the Rent Controller and filed Ext.P4 petition to record his surrendering of the building. The land lords have filed Ext.P5 objection to that petition. According to the petitioner, there is inordinate delay in the hearing of the petition and thereby his rights are defeated. The Rent Controller may be directed to dispose of Ext.P4 expeditiously, it is submitted. 2. We are not aware of the pendency of the cases before WP(C) 12725/08 -: 2 :- the Rent Controller. There may be several other cases, which may be pending before that court without disposal for several years. This Court is not justified in tinkering with the roster of the learned Rent Controller. If the petitioner has any grievance, he can move the Rent Controller for early hearing of the matter. Admittedly he has not done so. Therefore, this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be entertained. Accordingly, it is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and his right to move the Rent Controller for early disposal of Ext.P4. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 15/4