Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

M.A.Francis vs Joy Puthokkaran

Author: B. Kemal Pasha

Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair, B.Kemal Pasha

       

  

  

 
 
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
                                                  &
                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

               THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/19TH POUSHA, 1935

                                 OP (RC).No. 4462 of 2013 (O)
                                     -----------------------------
                   AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO. 4405/2013 IN RCP 185/2011
          OF III ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT & RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM
                                         ---------------------

PETITIONERS :
-----------------------

        1. M.A.FRANCIS,
            S/O.M.T. ALBERT, AGED 58 YEARS
            RESIDING AT MOONGALIL HOUSE
            SOUTH PIPE LINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 25
            DOING BUSINESS AT ALBERT CYCLE SHOP
            PRESS CLUB ROAD, KOCHI - 11.

        2. M.A. JOHNY,
            S/O.M.T.ALBERT,
            AGED 62 YEARS DO. DO.

            BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE

RESPONDENT :
------------------------

            JOY PUTHOKKARAN,
            S/O.JOSE CHACKO PUTHOKKARAN,
            AGED 53 YEARS, PUTHOKKARAN HOUSE
            LINK AVENUE COLONY, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM
            COCHIN - 17.

            BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY
                         SRI.R.SANJITH


            THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
            ON 09-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
            FOLLOWING:


Mn


                                                                            ...2/-

OP (RC).No. 4462 of 2013 (O)
-----------------------------------------

                                                      APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.4405/13 IN RCP 185/11 FILED BY THE
                     PETITIONER DATED 25.07.13.

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A.4405/13 IN RCP 185/11 FILED
                     BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 31.07.2013.

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2013 PASSED BY THE RENT
                     CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM IN I.A.4405/13 IN RCP 185/11

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :                            NIL
---------------------------------------------------------

                                                                     //TRUE COPY//




                                                                     P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn



                     T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                             B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          O.P.(R.C.) No.4462 of 2013
                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          DATEDTHIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY,2014

                                   JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The petitioners who are the respondents in the R.C.P.No.185/2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, are aggrieved by the order, Ext.P3 passed by the said court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Shri P.T. Jose and learned counsel for the respondent, Shri S.P. Chaly.

3. I.A.No.4405/2013 is one filed by the petitioners seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. A copy of the said application has been produced as Ext.P1(2). The petitioners sought for appointment of the Commissioner, to ascertain point Nos.1 to 6 therein. Points 1 and 2 are practically the same and the third point is to identify the vacant buildings available in the locality for conducting the business by the petitioners. The fourth point is to report how many shops were let out by the respondent in the Puthokaran Building other than the petition scheduled shop room and also report the present rent being paid by the tenants. OP (RC)No.4462/2013 -2-

4. While discussing the matter, it has been found in Ext.P3 that as far as item Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, it is not relevant and as far as item No.3 is concerned, the petitioners have not pointed out any vacant buildings. With regard to item No.4 also, the finding is against the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the Commissioner was appointed, these points also could have been directed to be ascertained by the Commissioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that those are matters which the Commissioner will not be able to ascertain and the court has granted permission to the petitioners to adduce evidence.

7. After perusing the order impugned, we are satisfied that no error has been committed by the Rent Control Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the matter is posted to 3.2.2014 for trial and the Commissioner has already filed a report.

In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this original petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

Sd/ (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) sd/- (B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) //true copy // p.s. to judge kav/