CHOZHIMADATHIL MOHAMEDKUTTY Vs. NALAKATH SAIDALI HAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 is Ext.P7 order passed by the Rent Control Court in I.A. No.1169/2012. The above I.A. was for remittance of the report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed by the court for local inspection, at the instance of the respondent/landlord. The Rent Control Court has observed that it is not the first time that the petitioner is moving the court for issuance of fresh commission/remittance of the Commissioner's report. It is observed that an earlier application for issuance of a fresh commission was dismissed and that order has become final. It is observed that the earlier application for remittance of the report was also dismissed for the reason that the points on which the remittance was sought for were already covered by the Commissioner's report.

(2.) THE court noticed that the present application I.A. No.1169/2012 was filed in the light of the oral evidence given by the Advocate Commissioner, who was examined as PW2 during the course of trial. The evidence was that at the time of inspection, another building was found in the vicinity of the petition schedule building. The present application is filed for remitting the Commissioner's report to PW2, the Advocate Commissioner so that, the Commissioner can file a fresh report as to whether, the landlord owns another building, as stated by the Commissioner as PW2 and as to whether that buillding is suitable for the landlord's purpose projected in the RCP.

(3.) MR. Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel appearing for the landlord would resist the submission of Mr. Jamsheed Hafiz. According to him, no case is made out for invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court for correcting Ext.P7.