K.T.Sankaran, J.
The petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.P.No.9 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kollam. The R.C.P. was filed by the respondent under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(iv) and 11(5) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
2. The Rent Control Petition was posted for trial. On the side of the tenant, an application was filed to summon the Secretary of Kollam Corporation to produce certain documents and to give evidence. That application was allowed by the Rent Control Court. However, an officer authorised by the Secretary of the Corporation appeared before court and he gave evidence.
Exhibits X1 to X3 were marked, Exhibit X1 being the authorisation given by the Secretary of Kollam Corporation to appear before court and to produce documents.
3. The tenant filed I.A.No.5109 of 2014 to review the order passed by the court on 14.11.2014 closing the evidence on the side of the tenant. The Review Petition was filed on 15.11.2014. The case of the tenant in the Review Petition is that the Secretary himself should depose before court about the matters which the respondent sought to prove. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant that the person authorised by the Secretary and who was examined before court could not depose on matters touching upon the documents produced. The tenant also filed an additional witness list to summon the Secretary of the Corporation. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application for review by the order dated 26th November, 2014, which is under challenge in this O.P.(R.C.).
4. The court below dismissed the application on the ground that there is no provision to re-summon a witness who was originally summoned. It was also held that there is no sufficient ground to examine the Secretary of the Corporation. The order does not indicate as to what purpose the petitioner wanted to summon the Secretary of the Corporation. On our query, the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submitted that the ward number of the building shown in the petition schedule building is incorrect and the petition schedule building is situated in another ward. It is submitted that to prove the same, it is necessary to produce the Building Tax Assessment Register and to examine the Secretary, Kollam Corporation. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord submitted that originally the building was in Kollam Municipality and the Municipality having been upgraded as Corporation, the ward number was also challenged.
5. It is not necessary for us to decide the question whether the number of the ward shown in the petition schedule is correct or not. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties would indicate that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the building. There is also no dispute regarding the landlord-tenant relationship. In these circumstances, we do not think, prima facie, that it is necessary to examine the Secretary of the Kollam Corporation. If the Rent Control Court finds that to resolve any dispute for the proper adjudication of the Rent Control Petition it is necessary to summon the Secretary of the Kollam Corporation, the order passed in I.A.No.5109 of 2014 would not be a bar for the court to summon the Secretary of the Corporation. In other words, what is relevant is the complete and final adjudication of the disputes involved in the case. For that purpose, the Rent Control Court would have power to summon any person, if it is found necessary.
The O.P.(R.C.) is accordingly disposed of with the above observations.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl P.D.RAJAN JUDGE