Kerala High Court
P.K.Yousaf vs V. Saidalikutty Haji on 21 December, 2014
Author: C.K. Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/10TH MAGHA, 1938
OP (RC).No. 16 of 2017 (O)
---------------------------
(AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 4929/2016 IN RCP 2/2014 OF THE
ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE)
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. P.K.YOUSAF
S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY,AGED 46 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER, P.K.TRADERS,
18/350 G, VELLARIYIL GARDENS,
M M ALI ROAD, PALAYAM, KOZHIKODE.
2. P.K.MUHAMMED HAJI
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.P.K.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI,
PARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.PARAMBIL PEEDIKA,
VELIMUKKU (VIA), MALAPPURAM (DIST).
3. P.K.SAITHALAVI
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.P.K.MOIDHEENKUTTY HAJI,
PARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.PARAMBIL PEEDIKA,
VELIMUKKU (VIA), MALAPPURAM (DIST).
4. P.K.SUBAIDA
AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.ABDURAHIMAN,
PARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.PARAMBIL PEEDIKA,
VELIMUKKU (VIA), MALAPPURAM (DIST).
5. PULPADAM MUHAMMED
AGED 59 YEARS, POTTAMMALMEDE,
PERUVALLUR PO, MALAPPURAM.
6. P.K.TRADERS
18/350 G, VELLARIYIL GARDENS,
M. M ALI ROAD, PALAYAM, KOZHIKODE-673002.
BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S
OP (RC).No. 16 of 2017 (O) -2-
-------------------------------------
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. V. SAIDALIKUTTY HAJI
AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAHAMMAD, VELLARIYIL HOUSE,
THEKKANKUTTOR, VENKALOOR, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.
2. AYISHAKUTTY
AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.SAIDALIKUTTY HAJI
-do- -do-
3. ABDURAHIMAN
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.SAIDALIKUTTY HAJI
-do- -do-
4. ABDUL HAMEED
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.V.SAIDALIKUTTY HAJI
-do- -do-
5. ANVAR
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.V.SAIDALIKUTTY HAJI,
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 REPRESENTED BY
P.A.HOLDER 1ST PETITIONER, VELLARIYIL HOUSE,
THEKKANKUTTOR, VENKALOOR, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AMG
OP (RC).No. 16 of 2017 (O)
-------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE RCP 2/2014 DATED 21.12.2014
EXHIBIT P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 03.04.2014
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DATED 21.10.2015
ALONG WITH THE SKETCH & PLAN
EXHIBIT P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER REPORT DATED
29.03.2016 ALONG WITH ITS SKETCH
EXHIBIT P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.No. 4929/2016 IN RCP 2/2014
EXHIBIT P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.NO. 4929 /2016 IN RCP 2/2014
DATED 13.12.2016
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
NIL
True copy
P.A. ToJudge
AMG
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
&
SHIRCY V., J.
-------------------------------------------------
OP (RC) No. 16 OF 2017
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Abdul Rehim, J:
An interim order passed by the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff Court-II), Kozhikode in IA No.4929/2016 in RCP No.2/2014 is challenged in this original petition which is filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioners in this original petition are the tenants in Rent Control Petition, which was instituted by the respondents herein. The Rent Control Petition was filed seeking eviction of the tenant from the rented premises, under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, raising a claim that the son of the elder daughter of respondents 1 & 2 is presently jobless and is intending to start a Bakery, Cool Bar and Cafeteria in the OP (RC) No.16/2017 -2- petition schedule room, for which he is dependent upon the respondents. The petitioners herein had resisted the Rent Control Petition inter alia contending that the need urged for own occupation is not bonafide and that there are other vacant rooms in the possession of the respondents in the same locality in which the need urged can be accomplished. The benefits provided under the second proviso to Section 11 (3) was also pleaded. In the Rent Control Petition, an Advocate Commissioner was deputed at the behest of the petitioners and a report as per Ext.P3 has already been filed. The petitioner filed an application to remit the report and a new report along with a plan was submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, as per Ext.P4. In the meanwhile the petitioners filed IA 4959/2016 seeking leave for serving interrogatories, as contemplated under Order XI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. The interrogatories to be answered which are mentioned in Ext.P5 interim application are as follows;
"1. How many rooms in the petition schedule building have been vacated by tenants after filing the above RCP ie after 21-12-2013.
OP (RC) No.16/2017 -3-
2. The detailed location and measurements of the said rooms in the plaint schedule buildings.
3. The full address of the persons to whom the said rooms are let out.
4. The passport number of K.P. Shaheer Hussain, S/o. Aminakkutty, grandson of the 1st petitioner.
5. Whether the said Shaheer Hussain is holding a Visa for working abroad and if so in which country and from which date to which date?"
The respondents objected the interim application by contending that the answers could be sought during cross examination and that the questions are irrelevant for determination of the issues. The Rent Control Court, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the interim application by finding that the questions are irrelevant for consideration of the matter and that the petitioners have no case that the respondents got any specific room in their vacant possession at the time of institution of the Rent Control Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Rent Control Court went highly erred in finding OP (RC) No.16/2017 -4- that interrogatories submitted are irrelevant for consideration of the Rent Control Petition. She has brought to our attention the provisions contained under Order XI Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure and also the ruling of a learned Judge of this court in P. Balan V. Central Bank of India (AIR 2000 Ker.24). It is pointed out that the question regarding availability of other suitable rooms is a matter which is relevant in the context of an eviction sought for under Section 11 (3) of the Act. So also it is contended that details of the Passport of the beneficiary of the land lord was raised as a question only with an intention to prove that the said person is employed abroad and is not having any idea to start the above business in the premises.
4. The findings of the Rent Control Court that the interrogatories are irrelevant, may be erroneous. But as pointed out above, the petitioners have not pleaded any specific case that any particular building is available in the custody of the land lords. As contended by the respondents, if the petitioners have got such case, they can very well bring out the matter in evidence, both by cross examining OP (RC) No.16/2017 -5- the land lord or by producing other relevant records. So also, regarding occupation of the beneficiary of the land lords, the petitioners can adduce evidence or cross examine the land lord on those aspects. Therefore we are of the opinion that non-sanctioning of the interrogatories will not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. We do not think that the court below had committed any manifest error or injustice in declining the interrogatories, nor it had acted without jurisdiction or acted patently against any relevant statutory provisions. The power vested on this court under Article 227, which is supervisory and visitorial in nature, cannot be invoked for correcting all mistakes in judicial orders passed by the courts below. The jurisdiction is neither appellate nor revisional in nature. If there is any error in the order impugned, the petitioners will be at liberty to challenge the same in the appellate or revisional proceedings.
5. In the result, this court is of the opinion that interference with the order impugned is not warranted under the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court. OP (RC) No.16/2017 -6- Consequently, the original petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V., JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A. to Judge