Kerala High Court
A.Unnikrishnan vs Koshy Thankachan on 11 April, 2011
Author: Pius C.Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, P.Q.Barkath Ali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP (RC).No. 786 of 2011(O)
1. A.UNNIKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT EDAVALLIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOSHY THANKACHAN, RESIDING AT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :SRI.A.R.DILEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :11/04/2011
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
O.P.(R.C.)No.786 of 2011
---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 Judgment Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is Ext.P5 order of the Rent Control Court, Kayamkulam. Under Ext.P5, the court has allowed I.A.No.546 of 2009, an application for impleadment filed by one Koshy Thankachan, the respondent. Sri.Koshy Thankachan was not a party to the Rent Control Petition. Neither is he a legal heir of C.K.John who had filed the Rent Control Petition. It is submitted that Sri.C.K.John passed away on 10.4.2008. As the legal heirs of C.K.John were not impleaded within the time prescribed in that regard, the R.C.P. stood abated as against them. The claim of the petitioner Koshy Thankachan in I.A.No.546 of 2009 was that he has been a co-owner of the building along with C.K.John. It appears on a reading of Ext.P5 that the Rent Control Court was somewhat impressed by the above claim. The petitioner has produced before us Ext.P4 particulars furnished to him (the OP (RC) 786/2011 2 tenant sought to be evicted) by the Kayamkulam Municipality under the Right to Information Act. Ext.P4 shows that going by the assessment register maintained by the Municipality, the co- owners of the building were C.K.John and one Roy Koshy John. On considering this Original Petition for admission, we issued notice by speed post. Though the respondent has entered appearance through counsel, today when the case is taken up, there is no resistance to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent, Koshy Thankachan, does not have any interest over the subject building. The further submission was that without setting aside the abatement which had already set in, the court below should not have allowed the impleadment application. We find some force in the above submissions. We are, therefore, inclined to set aside Ext.P5 and remit the matter back to the Rent Control Court, Kayamkulam for a reconsideration.
3. The result of the above discussion is that Ext.P5 is set aside. I.A.No.546 of 2009 is remitted back to the Rent Control OP (RC) 786/2011 3 Court, Kayamkulam. That court is directed to take a fresh decision in I.A.No.546 of 2009 in accordance with law, after appreciating the rival contentions. We expect the learned Rent Control Court to address the issue as to whether without setting aside the abatement which are already set in as against legal heirs of the deceased landlord, the I.A. could have been allowed. We also expect her to address the question whether having regard to Section 26 of Act 2 of 1965 and Ext.P4, the respondent in the O.P can have any interest in the building.
4. Needful in compliance of the above directions will be done by the learned Rent Control Court at the earliest and at any rate, within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
srd OP (RC) 786/2011 4 OP (RC) 786/2011 5