ABDUL NAZAR Vs. IYYATHUMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by one of the respondents in RCP No. 62 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Tirur challenging Ext. P6 order passed by the Rent Controller under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is alleged in the petition that the first respondent herein filed Ext. P1 Rent Control Petition as RCP No. 62 of 2013 for eviction of the respondents in that petition from the petition schedule building on the ground of arrears of rent, bona fide need and subsequent acquisition of building by the tenants under Ss. 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) In order to prove the case of the landlady that the tenants have acquired another building for the purpose of using the same as godown, for which the petition schedule building was taken, she had taken out an ex parte commission and the Commissioner filed Ext. P2 ex parte report showing the things noted by the Commissioner at the time of inspection. Earlier the petition was decided ex parte and thereafter on the basis of the application filed by the tenants, the ex parte order of eviction was set aside and it was restored to file and it is thereafter that the petitioner herein filed Ext. P4 application as IA No. 2153 of 2015 to remit the Commissioner's report raising objections to the Commissioner's report and wanted 11 points to be considered by the Commissioner, which according to the tenant, the Commissioner had omitted to consider at that time. The first respondent filed a detailed counter -affidavit stating that the things to be noted by the Commissioner later are not available at the time when the application was filed and those things are not required for proper consideration of the Rent Control Petition and it is only to protract the proceedings that the present petition has been filed and prayed for dismissal of the application. After considering the allegations and objections raised by both sides and hearing the submissions of both counsel, the Rent Controller by the impugned Ext. P6 order dismissed the application stating that there is no necessity to remit the Commissioner's report for reporting the matters stated in the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by one of the respondents before the Court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Deepa, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Since other respondents are none other than the respondents who were going along with the petitioner who is the third respondent in the lower Court having the same case, notice to them was dispensed with in this proceedings.