Litty George vs Mini Ponnappan
2023 Latest Caselaw 6061 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                        &
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
      FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                          OP (RC) NO. 105 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTRCP 7/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS
                              COURT,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/S:

            LITTY GEORGE,
            AGED 32 YEARS
            D/O.GEORGE, NJANUPARAMBIL COLONY HOUSE, KUDAVECHOOR
            P.O, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, VECHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKAM TALUK,,
            PIN - 685605

            BY ADVS.
            AJITH VISWANATHAN
            SHIBU JOSEPH
            P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)



RESPONDENT/S:

            MINI PONNAPPAN
            AGED 46 YEARS
            W/O.PONNAPPAN, ALANTHURUTHIL HOUSE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM
            P.O, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM KARA, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM
            VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,, PIN - 686605


     THIS   OP    (RENT   CONTROL)    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
09.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P(RC) No.105 of 2023                                 2




                              A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,
                                                      &
                                  MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ

                          ............................................................

                                     O.P(RC) No.105 of 2023
                         .............................................................

                           Dated this the 9th day of June, 2023


                                              JUDGMENT

Mohammed Nias.C.P. J.

This original petition is filed by the respondent/tenant in RCP No.7/2021 on

the files of the Rent Control Court, Vaikom, challenging Ext.P5 order in a petition

seeking eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease

and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The landlord, the respondent herein, had, after the evidence of both sides

was complete and when the case was posted for final hearing, filed an application

for reopening the evidence as the tenant took a contention that the fair rent was

fixed periodically, last of which was on 02.10.2020 at Rs.5,000/-. This contention

was allegedly taken on the basis of a statement given by the petitioner during her

cross-examination that, in the beginning, the rent was Rs.3,000/-, which,

according to the landlord, was nothing but a slip of tongue. It was also pointed

out that after Ext.A1 agreement, another rent agreement was executed between

the parties on 02-12-2019 in which the rent fixed was Rs.5,000/- and for

permitting her to adduce evidence regarding this fact, the evidence was sought to

be re-opened.

3. The respondent/tenant filed a counter stating that there is no bonafides

in filing the petition and that the landlord must be estopped from adducing further

evidence against the admission made earlier. The trial court heard both sides and

found that, inasmuch as the tenant has not denied or challenged the rent

agreements executed between the landlord and the tenant, and the landlord

having specifically pleaded that the agreed rent was Rs.5,000/-, an opportunity to

adduce evidence with respect to the rent amount ought to be granted by

reopening the evidence, as the court is not expected to shut out evidence.

Further, it was found that the tenant would not be prejudiced in any manner and,

accordingly, allowed the petition on terms.. This order is challenged before us.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the landlord could not

be permitted to withdraw the admission made and, therefore, a chance to reopen

the evidence should not have been granted.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the

available records, we find that the court below has rightly found that no prejudice

at all will be caused to the tenant by the landlord being permitted to reopen the

evidence as there was no dispute between the parties on the rent agreements

executed between them, which did stipulate the rate of rent. Further, there was

clear pleading in the Rent Control Petition itself as to the rate of rent, and,

therefore, the landlord's slip of the tongue in the box under a mistake cannot be

taken advantage of by the tenant. Further, the tenant will also get a chance to

cross-examine the landlord. In that view of the matter, we do not find any

prejudice or illegality caused to the tenant by the order impugned in this Original

Petition. The Original Petition lacks merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE

okb/

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 105/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P 1 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION NO 7/2021 ON THE FILES OF RENT CONTROL COURT VAIKAM

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILRD BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P 3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF I.A.NO.4 OF 2023 IN R.C.P.NO.7 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, VAIKOM

Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P3 PETITION I

Exhibit P 5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-03-

2023 PASSED BY RENT CONTROL COURT, VAIKOM IN I.A.NO.4 OF 2023 IN R.C.P.NO.7 OF 2021