IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35895 of 2009(F) -------------------------- RCP.128/2007 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BASHEER.A.E., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.EBRAHIM, AYYAMBRATH HOUSE, PALLILAMKARA, NORTH PIPELINE ROAD, H.M.T.COLONY P.O., THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.KANDAMPULLY RAHUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- NANDINI.S., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT `MADHAVAM', H.M.T.ROAD, KALAMASSERY, NJALAKAMKARA, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. SRI.K.B.DAYAL SRI.D.B.BINU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35895 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This petition under Article 226 is filed by the tenant against whom the Rent Control Court has passed an order of eviction ex parte. Ext.P4 application has been filed by him for getting that order set aside. Since Ext.P4 was not filed on time, he has filed Ext.P5 seeking condonation of delay. The grievance of the petitioner is that even as Ext.P4 and P5 are pending, the landlord has filed Execution Petition and the petitioner stands the risk of being evicted even before Exts.P4 and P5 are disposed of by the Rent Control Court. 2. Sri.Babu Karukapadath, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that his client is prepared to suffer any condition which may be imposed by this court and he requested that Exts.P4 and P5 be allowed on suitable terms and the Rent Control Court be directed to dispose of the RCP after enquiry. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Sri.K.B.Dayal WPC.No.35895/2009 2 opposes the above submission. According to him, reasons stated in Exts.P4 and P5 are not valid. He, however, has no serious objection in the Rent Control Court being directed to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 early. 4. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the Rent Control Court should be directed to take an early decision on Exts.P4 and P5 and that it should be ensured that the writ petitioner is not evicted before decision is taken on Exts.P4 and P5 by the Rent Control Court. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition in the following terms; i). The Rent Control Court, Ernakulam is directed to take up Exts.P4 and P5 hold necessary enquiries and dispose of both those petitions in accordance with law at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. ii). The Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam is directed not to order and effect delivery of the building which is subject matter of Ext.P3 eviction order till WPC.No.35895/2009 3 Exts.P4 and P5 are disposed of by the Rent Control Court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk