Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3555
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ
POKKATT MUSTHAFA – Appellant
Versus
PALAKKAL KADEEJA – Respondent
WP(C)/13878/2009
SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
The court reiterated that decisions within the discretionary powers of a lower court are generally not revisable under Article 227 unless there are significant legal errors.
Headnote:
Rent - Writ Petition - Article 227 - The court upheld the Rent Control Court's order allowing a tenant to remit costs in installments after reviewing the validity of the ex-parte eviction order based on unsubstantiated claims of illness.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner tenant sought to set aside an ex-parte eviction order, claiming illness with supporting certificates. However, no evidence substantiating the claim was produced, and the Rent Control Court allowed the application with conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claims were unproven, as there was no evidence presented, but it upheld the Rent Control Court's discretion in allowing payment of costs in installments due to financial constraints.
Issues: Whether the Rent Control Court exercised its discretion properly in allowing the tenant's appeal against the ex-parte order and the reasonableness of the imposed costs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the discretion exercised by the Rent Control Court under relevant laws was not subject to correction under Article 227, despite the lack of evidence from the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing installment payment of costs.
JUDGMENT
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
In this writ petition under Article 227 , the petitioner tenant impugns order passed by the Rent Control Court, Tirur in I.A. No.706/1999 in R.C.P. No.24/2008. Neither a certified copy nor even a true copy is made available. But, it is seen from documents Exts.P1 to P6 produced by the petitioner that the impugned order was passed by the Rent Control Court on an application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order of eviction passed against him. It is conceded that the above order was passed when the petitioner tenant failed to appear before the court on the day the case was special listed for trial. The ground raised by him in the application was that he was laid up and was being treated by a particular doctor. A medical certificate issued by the said doctor was also produced. To the application, Ext.P6 objection contending inter alia that the petitioner's case of having been laid up is not correct and that he was actually carrying on business on the day the ex parte order WPC.No.13878/2009 2 was passed was filed. Admittedly, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence, which means that there was no evidence to substantiate the petitioner's case that he was laid up. The doctor was not examined. The learned Rent Control Court nevertheless allowed the application, imposing a condition that a sum of Rs.5,000/- should be paid on or before 22/5/2009. It is conceded that the petitioner is carrying on business in the building in question. It is also conceded that the monthly contract rent of the building is Rs.1,350/-.
2. Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount fixed by the court by way of cost payable is exorbitant. We cannot agree. At any rate we are of the view that the visitorial jurisdiction of this under Article 227 is not be invoked to correct orders passed by the Rent Control Court in exercise of discretion vested in it under law. However, having regard to the appealing submissions of Sri. Mohammed Equabal regarding the financial constraint of client, even as we dismiss the writ petition, we direct the Rent Control Court to permit the petitioner to remit the sum of Rs.5,000/- ordered as payable by way of cost in two equal monthly WPC.No.13878/2009 3 instalment of Rs.2,500/- payable on 22/5/1999 and on or before
22/6/2009.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk
