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 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5954 of 2010(T) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 2451/09 IN RCP.29/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT (RENT CONTROL), HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.SUDHAKAR SHENOY,AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.K.NARAYANA SHENOY,RESIDING AT KMC.W/II/518, OPP. KAILAS THEATRE,KANHANGAD,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD (DIST). BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- S.P.ISMAIL, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.K.P.MOHAMMED,BUSINESS,OPP KAILAS THEATRE, KANHANGAD,KANHANGAD POST,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.5954 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P5 order passed by the Rent Control Court remitting the reports submitted by an Advocate Commissioner in a RCP filed by the petitioner on the ground of additional accommodation to the Commissioner himself. The learned Rent Control Court finds under Ext.P5 that the Commissioner has not correctly answered the points referred to him and it is on that reason that Ext.P5 order is passed and the report is remitted to the W. P. C. No.5954 of 2010 -2- Commissioner. 2. Even though Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, the learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us on the basis of the various grounds raised in the memorandum of Writ Petition, he would lastly submit that what worries the petitioner is that the observations if the Rent Control Court appears to have made regarding the merits of the contentions raised in the RCP in Ext.P5 are likely to cause prejudice to the petitioner/landlord while the learned Rent Control Court takes up the RCP itself for final disposal. We do not think so. We make it clear that observations, if any, made by the learned Rent Control Court under Ext.P5 are to be kept in mind by the Rent Control Court as observations made by him only for the purpose of W. P. C. No.5954 of 2010 -3- deciding the I.A. in which Ext.P5 is passed. We caution the Rent Control Court against being influenced by the observations contained in Ext.P5 while he takes up the RCP for final decision. The RCP will be decided on the basis of the evidence which comes on record in the RCP and in the light of statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents governing eviction orders to be passed under sub section 8 of section 11. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 3. Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth would now submit that the RCP is about two years old and requested that directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the same. In view of the above submission, we direct the learned Rent Control Court to special list the RCP for trial once the W. P. C. No.5954 of 2010 -4- Commissioner submits his report, try the RCP on a day to day basis and dispose of the RCP at the earliest. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-