O.P.(RC) No.120 of 2021
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anil K. Narendran
- P.G. Ajithkumar Friday
- Judgment Date
- 2022-01-28
- Court Decision / Holding
- The petition is dismissed. The High Court declines to interfere with the Rent Control Court’s order, holding that the urgent ex parte commission approach and the resulting report remain an acceptable part of the evidentiary framework in this eviction petition, while limiting the application of the Mukreerakath Khadeeja rule on remitting/further reports in the ex parte context.
- Final Disposition
- Petition dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- DEVI.V.K
- ANITHA K.P
- RANCY V.K
- RAYIHA V.K
- RAHIN
Respondents
- Gireesh Aavikkal
- PRADEEGH
- LASITHA
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • K.RAKESH
- • ROSHAN THUSHARA.V
Counsels for Respondents
- • ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL
- • K.SEENA
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Kerala High Court judgment under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involving five petitioners (tenants) challenging an order of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara, in I.A.1/2021 in R.C.P. No.43 of 2020, and seeking remittance of a commissioner’s report (Ext.P3) filed in the eviction petition under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court deputed an ex parte Commissioner to inspect the petition premises on grounds that the shop had been locked since 2009; the Commissioner filed his report on 10.12.2020. The petitioners moved Ext.P4 for remittance and a supplemental report, arguing misidentification of the scheduled shop and lack of notice, which they say would affect Ext.P2 in the eviction petition. The respondents defended the court’s approach, relying on urgent commissions where eviction under Section 11(4)(v) is involved. On 18.11.2021, Ext.P6 dismissed IA No.1/2021, with the Rent Control Court relying on Mukreerakath Khadeeja v. Krishna Janani. The High Court heard arguments but declined to interfere, noting that the best proof in such eviction petitions is a commissioner’s report obtained by surprise, while also distinguishing the exact rule on remitting or calling for a further report in the context of ex parte commissions. The petition is ultimately dismissed, upholding the Rent Control Court’s order.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Best mode of proof is to obtain a report from the Commissioner after inspection by surprise
- Six months' continuous occupancy prior to filing eviction petition under Section 11(4)(v)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners urged Ext.P4 for remitting the ex parte commission report and for a supplemental report, contending misidentification of the scheduled shop and lack of notice. They argued that a fresh inspection with notice would reveal the true state of affairs and would aid the contentions in Ext.P2. They sought an opportunity to cross-examine the Commissioner and to challenge Ext.P3. They contended that the petition raises important questions about identity and occupancy and that remittal could facilitate a fair determination of the eviction dispute. They pressed for relief under Article 227 to quash Ext.P6 if improper procedure or misidentification is established.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents defended the Rent Control Court’s order, arguing that the urgent commission was proper given the eviction grounds and that there was no illegality in deputing the Commissioner. They relied on the guiding principle from Mukreerakath Khadeeja v. Krishna Janani to justify the use of an ex parte commission and asserted that there is no utility in remitting the report or obtaining a further report after a long delay. They contended the identity of the shop as identified by the Commissioner was adequate and that Ext.P3 report is reliable evidence in support of eviction under Section 11(4)(v).
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mukreerakath Khadeeja v. Krishna Janani | 2011 (3) KHC 753 | Partly Overruled / Limited | The court relies on this case to justify the use of an urgent ex parte commission but distinguishes and limits its broader rule on remitting or obtaining another report, noting that the Mukreerakath Khadeeja rule does not apply to ex parte commission reports. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against O.P.(RC) No.120 of 2021 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.