IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26444 of 2009(A) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2435/2009 IN RCP.6/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BENNY KURIAKOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, KAVUNGUMPILLIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY KARA, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PARAMESWARA KURUP, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHA KURUP, KANDAMPLAYIL HOUSE, THRIKARIYOOR KARA, THRIKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.RENJITH THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26444 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The tenant is the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Arrears of rent is one of the grounds of eviction invoked against him in R.C.P. No.6/2008 filed by the respondent. There is stiff controversy between the parties as to what is the contract rent. According to the respondent, the contract rent is Rs.3,000/- per mensem. But, according to the petitioner, it is only Rs.1,500/-. The respondent produced Ext.P4 rent deed, which discloses that the contract rent is Rs.2,000/- per month. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 is a fabricated document and he filed Ext.P5 application for referring that document to an expert, so that the document can be scrutinised and a report obtained. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before Ext.P5 is decided, the learned Rent Control Court has special listed the RCP for trial. The prayer in this writ petition inter alia is that the Rent Control Court be directed not to take up the trial of RCP No. 6/2008 before Ext.P5 is decided. WPC.No.26444/2009 2 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. K.Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and those of Sri. Renjith Thomas, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri.Renjith Thomas submitted that Ext.P4 is not an important document and that the respondent does not propose to place any reliance on Ext.P4. We record the above submission of the learned counsel for the respondent and dispose of this writ petition without granting any of the relief sought for in the writ petition, since the question as to whether Ext.P4 is a genuine document will no longer arise for consideration in the RCP, since the respondent is not going to rely on Ext.P4 for any purpose whatsoever. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk