IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21477 of 2008(F) -------------------------- RCP.35/2007 of PRL.M.C.KOZHIKODE-I .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND COMPANY PRIVATE LTD., THRIKOVIL LANE, KOZHIKODE-673001 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR RAMESH MEHTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VIMALABHAI PRABHULAL, W/O.PRABHULAL NARANJEE SAIT, HOUSE NO. 11/4/660, FLAT NO.603, ASHOKA CHAMBER ENCLAVE, RED HILL, HYDERABAD - 500 004. 2. VIPINCHANDRA PRABHULA, S/O. PRABHULAL NARAJEE SAIT, HOUSE NO. 11/4/660, FLAT NO.603, ASHOKA CHAMBER ENCLAVE, RED HILL, HYDERABAD - 500 004. 3. MRS.MADHUR VIPIN MEHTA, W/O.VIPINCHANDRA PRABHULAL, HOUSE NO.11/4/660, FLAT NO. 603, ASHOKA CHAMBER ENCLAVE, RED HILL, HYDERABAD-500 004. 4. PRANAV VIPIN MEHTA, S/O.VIPINCHANDRA PRABHULA, FLAT NO.IC, BALAJI VENKATADRI APARTMENT, OLD NO.11, VENKATARAMAN STREE, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 017. 5. MALAY VIPIN MEHTA, S/O.VIPINCHANDRA PRABHULA, HOUSE NO.11/4/660, FLAT NO. 603, ASHOKA CHAMBER ENCLAVE, RED HILL, HYDERABAD - 500 004. -2- W.P.(C).NO.21477/2008 6. NALINCHANDRA PRABHULAL ALIA NALINKUMAR, S/O.PRABHULAL NARANJEE SAIT, 1, BRAGATHAMBAL STREET, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600034. 7. MRS.KRISHNA NALIN MEHTA, W/O. NALINCHANDREA PRABHULAL, 1, BRAGATHMBAL STREET, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600034. 8. NIRAV NALIN METHA, S/O. NALINCHANDREA PRABHULAL, 1, BRAGATHMBAL STREET, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600034. 9. DILIPKUMAR PRABHULAL, S/O. PRABHULAL NARANJEE SAIT, FLAT NO. 21, 5TH FLOOR, 3-5-121/E1, KALPATHARU APARTMENT, RAMKOTE, EDEN BAGH, HYDERABAD - 500 001. 10. MRS.KALPANA DILIP MEHTA, W/O.DILIP KUMAR PRABHULAL, FLAT NO. 21, 5TH FLOOR, 3-5-121/E1, KALPATHARU APARTMENT, RAMKOTE, EDEN BAGH, HYDERABAD - 500 001. 11. MEHUL DILIP MEHTA, S/O.DILIPKUMAR PRABHULAL, FLAT NO.21, 5TH FLOOR, 3-5-121/E1, KALPATHARU APARTMENT, RAMKOTTE, EDEN BAGH, HYDERABAD - 500 001. 12. M/S. SUNTEX PRIVATE LIMITED, THRIKOVIL LANE, KOZHIKODE - 673 001 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. 13. K.P. SYED KASIM, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, EAST NADAKAVU, KOZHIKODE - 673 011. 14. M/S. SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND COMPANY LIMITED, THRIKOVIL LANE, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF I.A.NO.2369/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S BEFORE THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER/PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF-1, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF IA.NO.2370/08 FILED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER/PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 8;/7/2008 ISSUED BY THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER/PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE IN I.A.NOS.2369/2008 AND 2370/2008. P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.21477 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August,2008 JUDGMENT Raman,J. Notice to the 4th respondent returned with endorsement “left”. Even though service of notice to some of the respondents is not complete, Sri G.Sreekumar, who have already entered appearance for some of the respondents, submits that he takes notice on behalf of the remaining respondents in this case. The same is recorded. Service is complete. 2. This is a writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. Petitioner is a tenant of the building belonging to the respondents/landlords. The rent control petition was eventually allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted and subsequently, he was evicted. He filed an application seeking to re-enter into the property. As per Ext.P3 order, the petitioner sought to reopen the evidence and recall the -2- WP(C).No.21477/2008 witness in the original case, R.C.P.No.35/2007. Evidence commenced on 18/6/2008. The court below dismissed the application for re-opening the evidence on the ground that the application is filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings. 3. We have heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that an opportunity could be given to the petitioner so that there may not be further delay in the completion of the proceedings. In view of the above submission, we allow the writ petition quashing Ext.P3. We direct that the court below will re-consider the matter permitting the petitioner to recall the witness Dws.1 and 2 for further examination and dispose of the case expeditiously. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.