R SURESH SHENOY Vs. P K VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 filed by the respondents in RCP No.12/2009 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam is the order passed by the Rent Control Court dated 16/7/2010. UNDER that order, the learned Rent Control Court has observed that for deciding the question of title, evidence has to be recorded and accordingly has listed the RCP itself for trial.

(2.) THE ground raised in the writ petition is that the Rent Control Court erred in not complying with the procedure which is envisaged by the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11. We do not agree. It is clear from the order dated 16/7/2010 itself that the Court below was mindful of the procedure envisaged by sub section (1) of Section 11. THE Court below took the view, and according to us rightly also, that for enabling the court to decide the question whether the denial of the landlord's title made by the writ petitioner is bona fide, evidence is necessary. That is why the RCP has been listed for trial. It is open to the parties to adduce evidence in the context of the denial of title also. We do not find any warrant for invocation of the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 for interfering with the impugned order. However, even as we decline the jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition, we direct the learned Rent Control Court to adjourn the trial of RCP No.12/2009 at least by three weeks from 7/9/2010 in view of the submission of Sri. Biju Abraham that some more time is required by the petitioners for getting ready for trial.