Kerala High Court
Abdulla Kunhi vs Poomadath Shaibana on 18 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945
OP (RC) NO. 152 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2023 IN RCP 7/2022 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4:
1 ABDULLA KUNHI, AGED 42 YEARS,S/O. MOHAMMED,
RESIDING AT KOPPADY HOUSE, KOTTACHERY, BALLA
VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, PIN - 671531
2 SAINABA, AGED 40 YEARS,D/O. MOHAMMED, RESIDING
AT KOPPADY HOUSE, KOTTACHERY, BALLA VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK, PIN - 671531
BY ADVS.
P.R.VENKATESH
LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT 1,2,5 AND 6:
1 POOMADATH SHAIBANA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. LATE
ABDUL RAZAK, RESIDING AT 'SOTHARA', NEAR
KANHANGAD RAILWAY STATION, P.O. KANHANGAD IN
HOSDURG VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, REPRESENTED BY
HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER POOMADATH ASSYUMMA,
AGED 62 YEARS, PIN - 671315
2 POOMADATH JUANA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. LATE ABDUL
RAZAK, RESIDING AT 'SOTHARA', NEAR KANHANGAD
RAILWAY STATION, P.O. KANHANGAD IN HOSDURG
VILLAGE OF HOSDURG TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HER
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER POOMADATH ASSYUMMA,
AGED 62 YEARS, PIN - 671315
3 ABDUL RAZAK S/O. SULAIMAN AGED 57 YEARS,
RESIDING ATMUMTAZ MAHAL, PARAVANADUKKAM,
CHEMMANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, PIN - 671315
4 MUMTAZ RAZAK, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL RAZAK,
RESIDING ATMUMTAZ MAHAL, PARAVANADUKKAM,
CHEMMANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK, PIN - 671315
OP (RC) No.152 of 2023 2
5 NAZEER ALI,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAMMED,
RESIDING AT THOTI HOUSE, PALLIKKERE VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK., PIN - 671315
6 UMAIBA, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED SHEREEF,
RESIDING AT 'FIELD VIEW', MANGAD, HOSDURG
TALUK ., PIN - 671315
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (RC) No.152 of 2023 3
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
O.P. (RC) No.152 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2023.
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
This original petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution is instituted challenging Ext.P10 order passed by
the Rent Control Court, Hosdurg, in terms of which the court
allowed Ext.P8 application preferred by the petitioners in an
eviction petition seeking leave to deliver a few interrogatories
on respondents 3 and 4 in the proceedings and for directions to
the said respondents to answer the same. Respondents 3 and
4 in the proceedings are the petitioners in the original petition
and respondents are petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 1, 2,
5 and 6 in the proceedings.
2. The eviction petition is one instituted under
Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act. The following are the interrogatories served by
respondents 3 and 4 on the petitioners.
1. What is the present monthly rent payable by you to the
petitioners, as per your contentions?
2. Do you admit or deny that you have paid a sum of
Rs.7,79,437/- on 20/01/2022 to the petitioner's counsel,
Satheeshkumar V. as arrears of rent, as directed by this Court
in I.A.No.4/2021 in R.C.P.No.36/2018?
3. Do you admit or deny that you have not paid any amount to
the petitioners or their counsel after 20/01/2022 and that rent
is in arrears from you from the month of January, 2022
onwards till date?
The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the matters covered by the interrogatories
are already on record and hence, it is unnecessary to deliver
the interrogatories.
3. The respondents in an application seeking
directions to answer interrogatories cannot challenge an order
on such an application if the questions sought to be served bear
a reasonably close connection with the matters involved in the
proceedings. The petitioners have no case that the
interrogatories do not have a reasonably close connection with
the matters in question. They do not also have a case that the
information sought is not readily available with them. Their
case is only that the information is available on record. That is
not an excuse for refusing to answer the interrogatories. The
challenge against the order, in the circumstances, is
mischievous.
The original petition(rent control) is, therefore,
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE.
Mn
APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 152/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RCP NO. 7/2022 DATED
7.3.2022 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
HEREIN BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT,
HOSDURG
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
FILED IN RCP NO. 7/2022 DATED
10.04.2023 BY THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RCP NO. 36/2018 DATED
4.10.2018 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL
COURT, HOSDURG
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 2085/2019 IN RCP
NO. 36/2018 DATED 4.10.2019 FILED
BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, HOSDURG
BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
RESPONDENTS 3, 9 AND 10 THEREIN DATED
16.07.2019
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.11.2021 IN
O.P. (RC) NO. 190/2019 FILED BEFORE
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED
WITH THE ERSTWHILE TENANT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 1/2023 IN RCP NO.
7/2022 DATED 27.5.2023 FILED BY
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT DATED
30/5/2023 TO THE PETITION IA NO. 1/2023
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2023
IN I.A. NO. 1/2023 IN RCP NO. 7/2022
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
7.2.2002 WITH ERSTWHILE TENANT WHICH
WILL SHOW THE DIMENSION OF THE TENANTED
PREMISES
