Tenants must establish the identity of vacant premises for eviction claims under the Rent Control Act; the court's supervisory role is limited to evident judicial errors.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

Since common issue is raised, these original petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. O.P.(RC)No.97 of 2022:- The petitioners are the respondents-tenants in R.C.P.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thaliparamba, a petition filed by the respondents herein-landlords on 08.03.2016, under Sections 11 (2), 11(3), 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule shop room bearing No.TMC XXII/53 in Thaliparamba Municipality. On receipt of notice in Ext.P1 RCP, the tenants entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 counter dated 03.11.2016.

2.1. When RCP was listed for evidence on 01.08.2018, the tenants remained absent and the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order of eviction, on 04.08.2018. The tenants filed I.A.No.2269 of 2018 seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, when RCP was listed for evidence on 07.06.2019, the tenants remained absent and the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order. The tenants filed I.A.No.1834 of 2019 seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Subsequently, when RCP was listed for evidence on 12.07.2021, the tenants remained absent and the Rent Control Court passed an ex- parte order of eviction, on 15.06.2019. The tenants filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking an order to set aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, on 11.11.2021, the Rent Control Court posted RCP to 05.03.2022, in the special list for evidence. Since the tenants changed their counsel, the Rent Control Court relisted RCP to 02.04.2022.

2.2. On 01.04.2022, the tenants filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.7 of 2016 (Ext.P3), an application under Section 23(g) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 , read with Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , for issuing a commissioner for local inspection to report the following aspects;

In that interlocutory application, the landlords filed an objection dated 04.04.2022 (Ext.P4), opposing the relief sought for, contending that the attempt of the tenants in filing such an application without mentioning anything to identify the buildings alleged to have been in the possession of the landlords, is only to drag the proceedings in the RCP. The Rent Control Court, by the order dated 04.04.2022 (Ext.P5), dismissed I.A.No.3 of 2022. The reasoning of the Rent Control Court in Ext.P5 order reads thus;

“It is seen that the matters sought to be reported by the petitioner is the room which are kept locked in the possession of the respondent and other matters pointed out by the petitioner. It is to be noted that this petition is filed when the case is in the published list. The petitioner even has not specified the room allegedly in the vacant possession of the respondent. Further by taking an advocate commissioner will not serve any purpose to identify the vacant possession of the same. That has to be proved by the respondent by other means. The 2nd prayer is also not specific. Hence, I find that this application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.” (underline supplied)

2.3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners-tenants are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside E