AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 359 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.—This Original Petition (Rent Control) is filed challenging an order passed in R.C.P.No.17 of 2012 by the respondent therein.
The petitioner is the respondent in R.C.P.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Palakkad. It appears that the petitioner herein raised certain disputes regarding the title of the landlord as revealed from the counter statement filed before the Rent Control Court disputing the title of the landlady. The Commissioner was taken out to inspect the petition schedule building with the aid of the Taluk Surveyor. The Commissioner was also directed to carryout measurements as per documents, if any, made available by the parties at the time of inspection. The document of title claimed by the petitioner herein was available in the records of the case. However, the petitioner made no request to measure the property on the basis of the same when the Commissioner inspected the property. This fact has been specifically pointed out by the
Commissioner in her report.
The petitioner filed I.A.No.2357 of 2013 to remit the Commission Report. The court below dismissed the said application. Challenging that order, this Original Petition is filed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The Rent Control Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction to enter a finding as to the identity of the property except for the limited purpose to find out whether there is any bona fide dispute as to the title. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below declining the request made by the petitioner to remit the Commission Report and to inspect the property with reference to the title deeds. Further, the petitioner was given enough opportunity before the Commissioner inspected the property. Having not availed such opportunity, the petitioner is precluded from raising the objection at later point of time. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this Original Petition warranting exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the O.P(R.C) is dismissed.