IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35541 of 2009(K) -------------------------- RCP.53/1996 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.C.JOHNY,S/O.CHAKKAPPAN, RESIDING AT VEERAMPULLY HOUSE, CHERUR ROAD, THRISSUR - 680018. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MUHAMMED KUNHI, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL AMBASSADOR, P.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. SARIMATH,S/O.LATE MUSTHAFA. 3. RASHEEDA, D/O.LATE MUSTHAFA. 4. SAMSHAD, S/O.LATE MUSTHAFA. 5. HAZEENA, D/O.LATE MUSHTAFA. 6. SHAHEENA, D/O.LATE MUSTHAFA. 7. AKBAR ALI, S/O.LATE MUSTHAFA. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT MUPPAKKATTU KOTTAKAKATHE, THANA P.O., KANNUR - 12. ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R1 SRI K P DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.C.No. 35541 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 is Ext.P3 order dismissing an application for issuance of commission and Ext.P5 order dismissing an application seeking review of Ext.P3 order. The writ petitioner is the landlord and his case is that the application for issuance of commission was filed by him on the basis of the permission granted by this court under Ext.P1 order of remand. His grievance is that the learned Rent Control Court dismissed the application stating that this court under Ext.P1 has not specifically permitted collection of evidence by deputing commissions. According to Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is an open remand that was passed by this court and full liberty has been given to both sides to adduce whatever evidence they want to. 2. Even though the submissions of Sri.Chitambaresh was resisted by Mr.Millu Dandapani, who would allege that the intention of the petitioner in seeking issuance of commission is WPC.No.35541/2009 2 only to protect the trial, we are of the view that the learned Rent Control Court was in error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of commission. This is what we have stated in paragraph 12 of Ext.P1 remand order; “Both the landlord and the tenant shall be at liberty to adduce any further evidence, both oral and documentary as deemed fit by them. However, the Rent Control Court shall take note of the fact that the Rent Control Petition is of the year 1996 and shall make every endeavour to finally dispose of th same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period f three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. According to us, Ext.P1 grants liberty to both sides to adduce whatever type of evidence they are desirous of. The Rent Control Court was not at all justified in dismissing the application saying that in our judgment we have not specifically mentioned about the issuance of commission. The writ petition necessarily has to allowed. We do so. Exts.P3 and P5 are set aside. Ext.P2 WPC.No.35541/2009 3 I.A. is allowed. The Rent Control Court is directed to appoint a competent advocate of that court as commissioner for conducting inspection on the various aspects mentioned in Ext.P2 and for submission of report. The Advocate commissioner to be appointed should be directed to ensure that inspection is conducted early and report is filed at the earliest. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk