IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25944 of 2009(O) -------------------------- CMA.34/2008 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY OS.353/2008 of PRL.M.C.,KANNUR (IA 2751/2008) .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT:DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAYYANATAN SANTHA KUMARI, D/O.NARAYANI,AGED 56 YEARS,BUSINESS,PAYYANATAN HOUSE,ANAKKULAM,KAKKAD,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------ PREMAJA RAMACHANDRAN, W/O.LATE RAMACHANDRAN,AGED 69 YEARS,NO OCCUPATION, DEVISADANAM,THAVAKKARA ROAD,KANNUR-2,KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25944 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to call for the records in I.A.No.2751/2008 in O.S.No.353/2008 of the Munsiff's Court, Kannur, affirmed by the Order in C.M.A.No.34/2008 of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thalassery and set aside Ext.P6 order of the Musniff of Kannur in I.A.No.2751/2008 in O.S.No.353/2008 dated 21.8.2008 and Ext.P7 order of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thalassery in C.M.A.NO.34/2008 dated 27.7.2009 in the interests of justice. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.353 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kannur. Suit is one for a decree WPC.25944/09 2 of perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondent is the plaintiff. Petitioner is admittedly the tenant of the building owned by the respondent. Previously, the petitioner had instituted a suit against another, who was granted permission to occupy the tenanted premises for carrying out the business, on his refusal to vacate the premises on termination of the licence. That suit was fraught up to a second appeal before this Court, in which, a decree of eviction was granted in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the building was got delivered over from the judgment debtor in that suit through court to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made some attempts to carry out maintenance and repairs to the tenanted premises, and at that stage, the respondent landlord filed the above suit seeking for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioner from carrying out the repairs and maintenance. An application for interim injunction moved by the respondent for an identical relief till the disposal of the suit was not granted by the learned Munsiff. Challenge raised against that order by the petitioner preferring an appeal was also unsuccessful. Impeaching the WPC.25944/09 3 propriety and correctness of the judgment passed in the C.M.Appeal preferred against the order of the learned Munsiff, petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented with reference to the order passed by the learned Munsiff and the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The courts below have concurrently found that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction applied for. After going through the order of the learned Munsiff and also the judgment rendered by the learned Sub Judge, I find the order/judgment does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no material alteration was WPC.25944/09 4 intended to be carried out by the petitioner/defendant, but, she desired to carry out some minor repairs since the building was delivered over from her licencee in occupation in a deplorable condition. In the building, it is submitted, hotel business was carried out. To make it fit and proper for running the business, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is absolutely essential to carry out some minor repairs. Needless to point out, as a tenant, petitioner may be entitled to carry out minor repairs and maintenance, but, in the given facts of the case where the court has passed an order, after hearing both sides, restraining the petitioner tenant from carrying out any repairs and maintenance in the building, it may not be possible for this Court to issue any direction permitting the petitioner to carry out minor repairs in the building. However, I make it clear that irrespective of the order passed by the learned Munsiff, which was upheld by the learned Sub Judge, it is open to the petitioner to seek permission from the trial court for carrying out minor repairs in the building without in any way causing material alteration, and that too, under the supervision of an Advocate WPC.25944/09 5 Commissioner appointed by the court and also at her expense. I am not expressing any opinion on the merit of the application, if so moved. It is for the learned Munsiff to consider such application, if so moved, after hearing the respondent as well. Reserving the right of the petitioner to move such an application and leaving it to the discretion of the learned Munsiff to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the respondent, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp