MATHEW MATHEW Vs. BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition was referred by J. B. Koshy, J. by passing the following reference order:

(2.) In the Original Petition the petitioner has impleaded only the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam and not the other parties, who are respondents 1 and 2 before the Rent Control Court. Since their presence is necessary for an effective adjudication of the grounds raised in the Original Petition, we suo-moto impleaded them as respondents 2 and 3 and also the State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary as the 4th respondent.

(3.) The petitioner filed the Original Petition to declare that the judgment in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala, reported in 1995 (2) KLT 848 = 1995 (2) KLJ 555, does not prevent the Rent Control Court from determining "fair rent" in other cases. A prayer for mandamus to compel the Rent Control Court to exercise its jurisdiction to determine "fair rent" on the application of the petitioner was also prayed for. Along with the Original Petition, the petitioner filed Exhibit P1, which is an application under proviso to S.4(5), S.5 and S.30(1) and 30(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and Exhibit P2, the order passed by the Additional Munsiff of Rent Control Court, Ernakulam dated September 14, 1999 dismissing the Rent Control Application in view of the ruling reported in 1995 (2) KLT 848. The said order reads thus: