IMPORTANT POINTS
Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised where alternative remedy is available.
Eviction suit ends with delivery of possession. Orders concerning thereof could not be opened in absence of any prima facie case made out on jurisdictional issues.
Filing application for giving redelivery of suit shop amounts to abusing process of the Court.
High Court can allow or reject an application, but it has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the Trial Court to pass a particular order.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed by the appellant-landlord against the final judgment and order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P.(RC) No. 69 of 2015(O) whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3) The controversy involved in this appeal is short. It arises out of an eviction matter. However, in order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective, we consider it apposite to set out the factual background of the case in detail with a view to show as to how the litigation between the parties progressed in the last 11 years before the Courts below and how it was dealt with at different stages which eventually led to passing of the impugned order giving rise to filing of this appeal by the landlord by way of special leave before this Court.

4) The appellant is the owner/landlord of eight schedule suit shops details of which are specified in the eviction petition. The respondent is in possession of one shop out of eight shops as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.350/-. The remaining seven shops were in occupation of other tenants at all relevant time.

5) The appellant filed one eviction petition (OP(RC) No.3/2006) before the Rent Controlling Court (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) against his 8 tenants, which included the present respondent herein also. The eviction was claimed under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) inter alia on the ground of bona fide need of the appellant to start business in the schedule suit shops. The appellant filed the eviction petition through his power of attorney holder. All the tenants including the respondent herein entered appearance and filed their written statements. They denied the material averments made in eviction petition.

6) By order dated 13.08.2007, the Trial Court placed the respondents (tenants) ex parte because on that day none of the respondents appeared. The Trial Court then recorded evidence of the appellant (landlord) and his witness and adjourned the case to 21.08.2007 for further hearing. On 21.08.2007 also, the tenants remained absent. The Court passed the eviction order on that day against all the tenants including the respondent herein by accepting the case set up by the appellant on merits.

7) Felt aggrieved by the aforementioned eviction order, the tenants filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority being RCA No. 51/2007. By order dated 28.08.2008, the appellate authority allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 21.08.2007 and remanded the eviction petition (RC(OP) No.3 of 2006) to the Trial Court for its fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law.

8) After the remand, the Trial Court adjourned the case on few dates such as 29.09.2008, 04.11.2008 and 03.12.2008 and then fixed for 08.01.2009. On 08.01.2009, since the Power of Attorney of the appellant and proof affidavit were neither filed nor the Power of Attorney Holder was present, the Trial Court dismissed the eviction petition (3/2006) for default.

9) The appellant then filed an application (IA 210/2010) and sought restoration of his eviction petition and for setting aside of the order dated 08.01.2009 by which his eviction petition (3/2006) had been dismissed. This application was listed for hearing on 15.03.2010. On the said date, the appellant’s (petitioner’s) counsel was absent and hence, the Trial Court dismissed the appellant's restoration application (I.A. No.210/2010) for default.

10) Felt aggrieved by the said order, the appellant (petitioner) filed another application being I.A. No. 437/2010 praying therein for restoration of his earlier application, i.e., (IA-210/2010). This application was also dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2010 by the Trial Court.

11) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant carried the matter to