ANN MARY SHINU C TOM Vs. CHESTY VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this Original Petition filed by the landlord (legal heirs of the original landlord) under Article 227 of the Constitution is Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Control Court, Thiruvalla. By Ext.P6 the Rent Control Court dismissed the application (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner who was impleaded as fifth respondent in Ext.P1 application filed by the respondents/tenants under sub Section 12 of Section 11. Ext.P4 was filed by the petitioner herein seeking amendment of the objections which was filed by her mother, Smt.Suma C. Chettimattom who had filed the Rent Control Petition along with her husband as the second petitioner. In fact, the present petitioner along with her siblings were arrayed as respondents in Ext.P1 I.A. To the I.A the mother as well as the petitioner herein filed separate objections. Going by the objections filed by the mother she had agreed that till November, 2007 i.e. long after the delivery of the building was taken in execution of the eviction order she has not started any business. I.A.910/11 (Ext.P4) seeks amendment of the objections filed by the mother and not by the petitioner. The learned Rent Control Court dismissed the I.A. by Ext.P6 order observing that the IA filed long after trial had started in the application under sub Section 12 of Section 11 was filed without any bona fides with the objective of protracting the proceedings under sub Section 12 of Section 11.

(2.) IN this Original Petition under Article 227 Ext.P6 is challenged on various grounds. Even before he would commence his submissions, Sri.V.Philip Mathew submitted that there is a likelihood of the issue between the parties being settled as the first respondent who is seeking restoration of possession under sub Section 12 of Section 11 has already secured an employment in a Neethi Medical Store and will never be able to re-occupy the buildings which is subject matter of eviction order even if the petition under Section 11(12) is allowed.