IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5006 of 2010(A) ------------------------- RCP.48/2008 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHAJAN JOSEPH K.R., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O LATE K.L.RAPHEAL, KOMORTH HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI-19. 2. SHAINA SHAJAN, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.SHAJAN JOSEPH K.R., KOMORTH HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI-19. 3. MARY RAPHAEL, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.L.RAPHEAL, KOMORTH HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI-19. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM SRI.S.GOPINATHAN SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. U.DEVI, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O LATE V.S.PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAICKAL, THRISSUR. 2. K.P.LAKSHMI DEVI, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O LATE V.S.PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAICKAL, THRISSUR. 3. K.P.NARAYANAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O LATE V.S.PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAICKAL, THRISSUR. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (CAVEATOR) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 5006 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 16 th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The above writ petition under Article 227 has been filed by the alleged tenants who are facing eviction proceedings as RCP No.48/2009 before the local Rent Control Court. In fact, the building, which is subject matter of the above RCP, is part of a larger building and the respondents/landlords had occasion to approach this court earlier being aggrieved by an order disallowing joint trial of all the six Rent Control Petitions but allowing joint trial of all the Rent Control Petition except RCP No.48/2008. Joint trial was not allowed in RCP No.48/2008 noticing that in that RCP the petitioners raised a contention that the landlords' title is denied and there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. We disposed of that writ petition by passing Ext.P11 judgment. Under Ext.P11, we had directed the Rent Control Court to take up the issue as to whether the denial of title raised by the present writ petitioners in RCP No.48/2008 as a preliminary issue. We had also directed WPC.No.5006/2010 2 that if the decision on the preliminary issue comes to be in favour of the landlords, the court shall reconsider the decision to disallow the joint trial of RCP No.48/2008. 2. We are now informed that the Rent Control Court decided that the denial of title raised by the petitioners in RCP No.48/2008 is not bona fide. Accordingly, the earlier order disallowing joint trial was reviewed and the court has ordered joint trial of RCP No.48/2008 along with other five RCPs already ordered to be jointly tried. 3. In this writ petition it is prayed that the order in I.A. No.5224/2009 allowing joint trial of RCP No.48/2008 be set aside; a direction be issued to the Rent Control Court Ernakulam to issue certified copy of the preliminary order dated 19/12/2009 and the order dated 7/1/2009 in I.A.No. 5244/2009 to the petitioners at the earliest and not to conduct trial in RCP No.48/2008 before the appeal which the writ petitioners intend to file against the preliminary order is disposed of. 4. On this writ petition coming up for admission, Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, who has lodged a caveat on behalf of the landlords, has taken notice on behalf of the WPC.No.5006/2010 3 respondents/landlords and we have heard the submissions of Sri.Johnson Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai. We notice that some of the grounds raised in this writ petition are directed against the preliminary order passed by the Rent Control Court on 19/12/2009 holding that denial of the landlord's title raised by the petitioners is not bona fide. We are not inclined to examine the merits of those grounds. 5. Sri. Johnson Abraham submitted that though application for certified copy of the preliminary order dated 19/12/2009 was readily filed, the petitioners have not so far received copy of that order. According to him, there is considerable delay in the Rent Control court in the matter of issuance of copies. We are not impressed by the above submission since we find that the petitioners were able to get a copy of the order dated 7/1/2010 in I.A. No.5244/2009 by 11/2/2010 itself. We are sure that if the petitioners were vigilant, they could have got certified copy of the preliminary order dated 19/12/2009 by this time . But whatever that be, without examining the merits of any of the grounds raised, we dispose of this writ petition issuing the WPC.No.5006/2010 4 following directions; i). If the copy application filed by the writ petitioners for issuance of certified copy of the preliminary order dated 19/12/2009 in RCP No.48/2008 is pending and that application is in order, the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam will issue certified copy of the order applied for at the earliest and at any rate within two days of receiving a copy of this judgment. ii). Considering the above direction, we direct the Rent Control Court not to insist on the examination of the writ petitioners who are respondents in R.C.P.No.48/2008 or on adduction of any evidence by the writ petitioners in that RCP for a period of seven days from today. But the writ petitioners will be bound to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners in the RCP. It is clarified that this judgment does not amount to staying the joint trial of the rent control petitions. It will be open to the Rent Control Court to commence trial on the scheduled date itself. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk