Kerala High Court
P.J.George vs A.P.Kadheesa on 13 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943
OP (RC) NO. 70 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN RCP
11/2014 OF RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE),
SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD DATED 25.03.2021
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
P.J.GEORGE, S/O.JOSEPH,
AGED 57 YEARS, PARUNTHANAYIL VEEDU,
MEENANGADI PO, PURAKKADI AMSOM, DESOM SULTAN
BATHERI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
K.MOHANAKANNAN
T.V.NEEMA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
A.P.KADHEESA
W/O.ANTHRU, AGED 65, KANAKKASSERI VEEDU,
ANCHUKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, MANANTHAVADI TALUK,
WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
OP (RC) NO. 70 OF 2021
JUDGMENT
M.R. Anitha, J.
1. This Original Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed against Ext.P5 order
dated 25.03.2021 of the Rent Control (Munsiff-
Magistrate) Court, Sulthan Bathery in I.A.No.2 of 2021
in R.C.P.No.11 of 2014 rejecting the prayer of the
petitioner for remission of Ext.P3 Commissioner's report
dated 01.07.2015.
2. Petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.11 of
2014 on the files of Rent Control (Munsiff-Magistrate)
Court, Sulthan Bathery. Rent Control Petition was filed
claiming eviction under 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. According to the
petitioner, in the commission report filed, certain aspects
with regard to the additional construction made by him
has not been covered. So the petitioner requested to
remit the commissioner's report and to call for a report
with expert aid, by submitting Ext.P4 application. In
OP (RC) NO. 70 OF 2021
Ext.P2 objection filed to the Rent Control Petition,
petitioner denied the title of the respondent-landlord
also.
3. When the matter came up for admission, heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention
of the learned counsel is that petitioner has sought for
remission of the Commissioner's report for looking into
the additional construction carried out by him, extending
to the property of the adjacent land owner also. Hence
the measurement of the property is very much
necessary. It is also his contention that in the objection,
the petitioner has disputed the title of the landlord and
without considering any of the said contentions, the
learned Rent Control Court rejected his prayer to remit
the Commissioner's report.
4. Ext.P2, the copy of objection filed by the petitioner to
the Rent Control Petition would show that the landlord-
tenant relationship is admitted. His present contention is
regarding the additional construction carried out by him,
allegedly with the consent of the respondent-landlord.
But in the copy of the Rent Control Petition produced as
OP (RC) NO. 70 OF 2021
Ext.P1 schedule of the property which is sought to be
evicted has been specifically given, which reads as
follows:
SCHEDULE
District Wayanad Taluk S. Bathery
Amsom Purakkadi Desom Do
Re-survey 721/iB2 Panchayath Meenangadi
No.
Ward No. XIV (old-XI
Building 602 and 599
No. (New No.682
and 681)
Description:
Shop rooms forming part of the two storied tiled
commercial building by name 'APK Building' situates
in Meenangadi town, abutting NH 212, having
door/building No.XI/602 and 599 of Meenangadi
Panchayath with rolling shutters for the ground floor
room and with all fixtures and fittings thereof (Room
No.XIV/682 being the shop room in the ground floor
of the building with annexed thatched portion thereof
on the rear side and room No.XIV/681, being the up
stair portion of the building).
Boundaries:-
East:- Land belongs to V. Pathumma
OP (RC) NO. 70 OF 2021
North:- Building owned by Ramla P
West:- N.H.-212
South:- Remaining part of the building (Room
No.681)"
5. When the description of the buildings sought to be
evicted is specifically provided in the schedule, a further
commission report with regard to the alleged additional
construction carried out by the petitioner is beyond the
scope of the Rent Control Petition. If at all any additional
constructions are carried out by the petitioner extending
to the property of the adjacent land owner, beyond the
limits of the petition schedule building, it will not cover
the order of eviction, if any, passed by the Rent Control
Court. Moreover, the copy of the commissioner's report
produced as Ext.P3 would show that it has been filed as
early as on 1st July, 2015. The present petition filed by
the petitioner seeking for the remission of the
commissioner's report, copy of which is produced as
Ext.P4, has been filed only on 20.03.2021. So that itself
would show the lack of bonafides on the part of the
petitioner-tenant.
6. So on an evaluation of facts and circumstances we are of
OP (RC) NO. 70 OF 2021
the considered view that there is no error of jurisdiction
or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of the rent
controller in passing the impugned order and we do not
find any reason warranting the exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India.
7. In the result, Original Petition is found to be devoid of
any merit and hence dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
M.R. ANITHA, JUDGE
AV/13/7
OP (RC) NO. 70 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RCP 11/2014 RENT
CONTROL COURT, SULTAN BATHERI
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT/TENANT IN RCP 11/2014
DATED 14-11-2014
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON REPORT WITH
SKETCH DATED 1-7-2015
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND
PETITION FILED IN SUPPORT OF IA 2/2021
IN RCP 11/2014
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 2/2021 IN
RCP 11/2014 DATED 25-3-2021
