P K THOMAS Vs. ICICI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the landlords seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The petitioners have filed R.C.P. 21 of 2010 before the local Rent Control Court seeking to evict the respondents/tenants on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is submitted by Mr. Renjith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that it is very reliably understood that the respondents may be surrendering possession of the petition schedule building shortly and even by tomorrow. Learned counsel submitted that the key was tendered to the petitioners, but they were unwilling to receive the key directly from the respondents in view of the ground under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act and the respondents have been directed to deposit the key before the Rent Control Court. It is submitted that the court has already appointed a commission for assessing the damages which have allegedly been caused to the building by the respondents. However, the commission order has not been issued as the court has not appointed an expert for assisting the commissioner. IA. 6629 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner before the court below seeking appointment of an expert. According to the petitioners, unless the commissioner assisted by the expert conducts inspection, it will be extremely difficult for the petitioners to recover damages from the respondent. Learned counsel also submitted that there is already one commissioner's report available in the case which is to the effect that due to the negligent user of the building by the respondents, damages have been caused to the building. But according to the learned counsel, an additional report with expert assistance will also be required for recovering the damages.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A further commission report, on the basis of the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of an expert may be of assistance to the petitioners in the suit which the petitioners may have to file against the respondents for recovery of damages. But the question is whether, we, under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, will be justified in issuing the direction sought for. One thing is certain. Once the Rent Control Court is convinced that the building in question is surrendered to the landlord in a Rent Control Petition like the present one, there is no scope for further enquiry in the Rent Control Petition. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that granting the relief sought for in the original petition will be beyond the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. So we decline the relief and dismiss the original petition.