IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (RC).No. 923 of 2010(O) -------------------------- RCOP.4/2010 of RENT CONTROL COURT.,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER :- -------------------- RAJU MATHEW, SHALEM PRINTERS, MUTTAMBALAM P.O.,KANJIKUZHY,KOTTAYAM PIN-686004 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. JACOB BABU, KOZHIPPURATHU HOUSE COLLECTORATE P.O.,MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686002 2. ANNAMMA BABU,KOZHIPPURATHU HOUSE COLLECTORATE P.O.,MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE KOTTAYAM-686002 ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH FOR R THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ---------------------------------- O.P.(R.C). No.923 of 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T Under challenge in this original petition filed by the tenant is Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional Rent Control Court, Kottayam in I.A.No.1742 of 2010 in RCOP 4 of 2010. The RCOP was filed by the landlord for evicting the petitioner/tenant on the ground of additional accommodation for running his business. The I.A. was a commission application filed by the tenant for getting a report regarding certain aspects which are relevant to the adjudication of the issue. Under Ext.P4, the learned Rent Control Court has closed the I.A. relying on an interim report seen filed by the Advocate Commissioner to the effect that the tenant is not co- operating. Ext.P4 is challenge on various grounds including the ground that even according to the notices which commissioner claims to have served on the parties, the O.P.(R.C). No.923/2010 -: 2 :- inspection was scheduled first on 16.9.2010 and then on 23.9.2010 and that the impugned order passed on 7.9.2010 is per se unsustainable. Further arguments are addressed on the basis of the endorsements on Ext.P5 series of notices issued by the commissioner, that copy of the said notices were only served on the counsel for the landlord. We find merit in the submission of the learned counsel regarding service of notice on the counsel for the tenant. As for the submission of the learned counsel with reference to the dates on which the impugned order was passed and the commissioner had scheduled the inspection, we feel that there is some confusion. What ever it is, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remuneration payable to the commissioner was readily paid by the tenant only. We feel that Ext.P4 should be interfered with and the learned Rent Control Court should be directed to ensure that the commissioner conducts the inspection pursuant to the order originally passed on I.A.No.1742 of 2010 so that the report which was called for by the court can be made O.P.(R.C). No.923/2010 -: 3 :- available before the adjudication. Accordingly we dispose of this Original Petition as follows. Ext.P4 order closing I.A.No.1742/2010 is set aside. The learned Rent Control Court is directed to issue appropriate directions to the commissioner already appointed and ensure that the commissioner conducts inspection with notice to both sides on a stipulated date and files his report based on the inspection at the earliest. It will be ensured by the learned Rent Control Court that inspection is conducted and report is filed before the court closes for Christmas holidays. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt