MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. K.U.THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the tenants in R.C.P.No.1 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Perumbavoor, a petition for eviction filed by the respondent/landlord under section 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short. The petitioners are running an FL-I shop in the tenanted premises. Though the tenants were initially set ex parte, the order setting aside them ex parte was set aside and thereafter the tenants filed objections. Shortly after the objections were filed, the tenants filed I.A.No.2000 of 2015 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local investigation and to submit a report to the Rent Control Court as regards the following matters:

(2.) to report whether the Building bearing Door Nos.KP3/202 A and KP.3/202B of Kizhakkambalam Panchayat which owned and occupied by the petitioner has separate ingress and egress with Boundary wall.

(3.) We heard Sri. C.S. Ajith Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Thomas Geevarghese, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Sri. C.S. Ajith Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even assuming for the sake of arguments (it being not conceded) that the tenants are not entitled to the protection of second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the tenants are certainly entitled to have the petition schedule building inspected for the purpose of ascertaining whether the need for additional accommodation put forward by the landlord is bona fide. Inviting our attention to the first proviso to sub-section (10) of section 11 of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Control Court has to compare the hardship which may be caused to the tenant with the advantage if any to the landlord, while passing an order of eviction and therefore, for that purpose also an order appointing an Advocate Commissioner is really necessary in the case on hand. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has no objection to an Advocate Commissioner being appointed to inspect the premises and to submit a report as regards items 1 to 3 in I.A.No.2000 of 2015. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners will be satisfied if an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to inspect the premises and to submit report as regards items 1 to 3 in I.A. No.200 of 2015. In the light of the agreement between the parties and as the report and sketch to be submitted by the Advocate Commissioner will be helpful to the court for arriving at a just and fair decision, we are of the opinion that the impugned order can be set aside and I.A. No.2000 of 2015 allowed in the manner indicated above.