The court affirmed that issues surrounding ownership must be addressed directly between parties in a Rent Control Petition, and third-party complaints lack relevance when the title is undisputed.

J U D G M E N T

Sophy Thomas, J.

The respondent/tenant in RCP No.48 of 2021 is before us, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside Ext.P5 order of the Rent Control Court in I.A No.8 of 2022.

2. IA No.8 of 2022 was filed by the tenant under Section 23 (c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), to call for the letter No.B3-1860/21 dated 18.08.2021 from Sri.P Moidu, Health Inspector-Grade II, Puzhathi Zonal Office, Kannur Corporation. According to the tenant, one Mr.M.K Jayasenan complained to the Health Inspector that he is also a co-owner of the tenanted premises, and the tenant is running a Dental Clinic in that building without his permission. So, according to the tenant, apart from the landlords in the Rent Control Petition, one Mr.Jayasenan also is a co-owner of the tenanted premises, and in order to prove that fact, the complaint preferred by him before the Health Inspector has to be called for.

3. The landlords opposed that petition contending that, there was no bonafides or merits in that petition and it was filed only to drag the case, and to harass the landlords.

4. The Rent Control Court, after hearing the rival contentions from either side, dismissed that petition finding that, no purpose will be served by summoning such a letter from the Health Inspector, as the tenant was never disputing the title of the landlords in the RCP.

5. Heard learned counsel Sri.P.U Shailajan, appearing for the petitioner.

6. The tenant has no case that, in the objection filed by her in the Rent Control Petition, she had denied the title of the landlords. She is not disputing the fact the landlords are the legal heirs of deceased Sreekanth from whom she took the tenanted premises on lease. Now her case is that, one Mr.Jayasenan filed a complaint before the Health Inspector stating that he is also a co-owner of the tenanted premises, wherein the tenant is running her Dental Clinic without getting his permission. Since the tenant is not disputing the title of the landlords, the Rent Control Court rightly rejected her petition to call for the letter from the Health Inspector, as the complaint if any filed by a third party had no bearing in the RCP. The so called complaint filed by Mr.Jayasenan had nothing to do with the issues involved, and it was not at all relevant for the disposal of the RCP.

The RCP is of the year 2021. We have issued general guidelines in Rent Control Revision No.22 of 2010 [Irvin John Jayarajan and others vs. Madhavi alias Narayani Amma and others (2022 (7) KHC 1)], regarding the time limit within which Rent Control Petitions are to be disposed of by the Rent Control Courts. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court, Kannur is directed to dispose RCP No.48 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the court closes for summer recess.

With this direction, the OP(RC) stands dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B SURESH KUMAR JUDGE Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE smp APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 51/2023 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN R.C.P.NO.48/2021 DATED 23.2.2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT), KANNUR.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 28.7.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.C.P.NO.48/2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH I.A.NO.8/2022 IN R.C.P.NO.48/2021 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL (MUNSIFF)

COURT, KANNUR BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN EXT.P3 DATED NIL.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.1.2023 IN I.A.NO.8/2022 IN R.C.P.NO.48/2021 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy P.S to Judge smp