Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, quite in extenso.
2. Petitioner, who is a tenant facing eviction proceedings under Act 2 of 1965, challenges an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Control Court during the course of proceedings pending trial. According to the tenant, there is already a commission report, which forms part of the records of the case from which this original petition arises. The landlady produced another document, which is the commission report in yet another case. The landlady has been given liberty by the Rent Control Court to examine the person, who prepared that commission report. As noticed by the Rent Control Court in the impugned order, that OP(RC) 136/14 -2-
commission report is merely a document and its proof would depend upon the manner in which that document would be proved through its maker. The evidentiary value of that document, as well as the admissibility, and, the possible appreciation of that material in contradistinction to the commission report on record in the case from which this original petition arises are matters, which will have to be addressed by the Rent Control Court, on the basis of the arguments at the conclusion of the trial. That will give a wholesome adjudication and an opportunity for the parties to place all views in the matter. The ultimate requirement is to render a verdict in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience, which stands reminded in terms of Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no error of jurisdiction or gross illegality or miscarriage of justice, that would result from the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is all the more so because, the tenant will have an opportunity to OP(RC) 136/14 -3-
raise all questions in opposition to the rent control petition and also in any appeal, if it becomes necessary, ultimately, for him.
For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing anything on merits of the rival contentions in the original proceedings and preserving all the pleadings and rights of the tenant, who is the petitioner herein, as also the landlady, this original petition is dismissed in limine.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg