Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1052 (KER)

Vilasini v. Subran

2013-11-28

B.KEMAL PASHA, T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

body2013
Judgment : T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. The judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is under challenge in this revision petition, at the instance of the land lord. 2. We heard, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.G.Sreekumar and learned counsel for the respondents Sri.K.Ramachandran. 3. A reading of the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority will show that after being satisfied that the tenant be given an opportunity to contest the matter, the order passed by the Rent Control Court was set aside and the matter was remanded. One of the pleas raised by the original tenant in the RCP is that the document of title produced as Ext.A1 in RCP is sham. The Appellate Authority, after perusing the counter statement of the tenant, found that the plea has been raised even initially and therefore there is sufficient explanation for the non appearance before the Rent Control Court for adducing evidence. It was held that a fresh opportunity should be granted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Sreekumar submitted by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh and Others (C.A.No.2811, 2812, 2813 of 2010) that the tenant cannot deny the title without seeking for cancellation of the document or seeking a declaration. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri.K.Ramachandran submitted that the Appellate Authority has not gone into the contentious issues, but has allowed an opportunity to the tenant, to adduce evidence, after accepting the plea by the tenant that she was a maid servant working at a distant place at the time when the case was listed for trial and there is nothing wrong with the said order. 6. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority granting an opportunity to the tenant cannot be said to be irregular, illegal or improper. Therefore we dismiss the revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that a direction should be issued to the Rent Control Court to expedite the trial and a time limit also be fixed for disposing of the matter. It is also submitted that this is the second round of litigation. Therefore we dismiss the revision petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that a direction should be issued to the Rent Control Court to expedite the trial and a time limit also be fixed for disposing of the matter. It is also submitted that this is the second round of litigation. Being an RCP of 2001, we direct the Rent Control Court to dispose of the matter finally within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.