ANTINY MATHEW Vs. JOSE VARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord who filed the Rent Control Petition against the respondent under Section 11 (3) and 11 (8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent filed a counter statement resisting the claim for eviction. While so, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 petition under Section 12 of the Act seeking an order directing the respondent to pay admitted arrears of rent. Thereafter, the respondent filed Ext.P6 petition seeking an order permitting the petitioner to amend the counter statement to incorporate necessary pleadings challenging the maintainability of the Rent Control Petition. In Ext.P6 it is contended that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable as the same is hit by Section 11 (9) of the Act. In the above context the Rent Control Court posted Ext.P5 amendment petition at first for hearing in preference to Ext.P6 petition filed earlier under Section 12 of the Act. In the above context, the petitioner filed this O.P.(R.C.) invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Rent Control Court to pass orders at first on Ext.P4 petition filed by the petitioner within a specified time in preference to Ext.P6 petition for amendment filed by the respondent.

(2.) Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Section 12 and contended that the respondent has no right to contest the Rent Control Petition challenging the maintainability also unless admitted arrears of rent is paid as provided under Section 12 of the Act.