Tenants must receive copies of relevant court orders before eviction proceedings can lawfully proceed, ensuring the right to a fair hearing.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The petitioners are the respondents-tenants in RCP No.91 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control (Principal Munsiff) Court, Thrissur, a petition filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 5 (1) and Section 11 (2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , seeking fixation of fair rent in respect of the petition schedule shop room and for evicting the tenant from that shop room. In that Rent Control Petition, the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order of eviction. The tenants filed applications before Rent Control Court for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction and for condonation of delay in filing the former application. Those interlocutory applications ended in dismissal by the order dated 30.03.2024. The petitioners are yet to be issued with a carbon copy of that order. In the meantime, the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur is proceeding with EP No.671 of 2020 in RCP No.91 of 2015. It is in such circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Thrissur to immediately issue carbon copy of the orders in Exts.P8 to P10 applications before proceeding with EP No.671 of 2020 in RCP No.91 of 2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-landlord. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the 2nd respondent, the alleged sub-tenant, is dispensed with.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur is proceeding with EP No.671 of 2020 in RCP No.91 of 2015 even before the petitioners are issued with a carbon copy of the order dated 30.03.2024 of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Thrissur, in Exts.P8 to P10 interlocutory applications filed in RCP No.91 of 2015.

4. Though the learned counsel for the 1st respondent- landlord would contend that the 2nd respondent, the alleged sub- tenant, who is the Power of Attorney holder of the 1st petitioner, is conducting the business in the petition schedule property, we do not propose to consider those aspects in these proceedings, considering the limited scope of the relief sought for in this original petition.

5. In such circumstances, this original petition is disposed of by directing the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Thrissur, to issue certified copy of the order dated 30.03.2024 in Exts.P8 to P10 interlocutory applications in RCP No.91 of 2015 to the petitioners-tenants, based on the copy application already made, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one week. Till such time, further proceedings in EP No.671 of 2020 in RCP No.91 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Thrissur, shall be kept in abeyance.