AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.—Petitioner is the landlord/petitioner in a Rent Control Petition filed against the respondents seeking eviction u/s 11(7) of Act 2 of 1965. The Rent Control Petition was filed along with four other cases, seeking identical reliefs with respect to other tenants in the same building. Those four cases were numbered as RCP Nos. 80/97, 81/97, 82/97 & 83/97 and the number of the Rent Control Petition concerned with this Writ Petition is RCP.234/97. All the cases were jointly tried and disposed of by a common order dt.29/01/03. The Rent Control Petitions were dismissed. The landlord filed appeals in all the five cases. The Appellate Authority, by a common judgment dt.14/09/09, allowed all the appeals and ordered eviction. But in the operative portion of the appellate judgment, wherein the number of the cases before the Rent Control Court is mentioned, instead of RCP No. 234/97 mistakenly it is noted as RCP.84/97. The petitioner submitted application for correction as I.A.1497/08, which was allowed by the Appellate Authority as per Ext.P3 order. The certified copy of the corrected judgment and decree in the case in question has not been issued so far insisting on production of the certified copies already issued by the Appellate Authority, in all the cases. The number of the appeal corresponding to RCP.234/97 is RCA.45/03. According to the petitioner, certified copy of the judgment in RCA.45/03 was already produced, after getting the same returned from the execution court. But corrected judgment and decree in that case has not been issued, insisting that the petitioner should produce certified copies of the judgments in all the connected RCAs.
When the matter came up for consideration, we directed the petitioner to serve copy of the Writ Petition to the counsel appearing for respondents before the court below. But inspite of service of notice and inspite of the name of the counsel being published in the cause list today, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent.
It is noticed that the mistake occurred only in the number of one RCP, i.e. RCP No. 239/97. Hence, if a corrected judgment and decree is issued in the corresponding RCA (i.e. RCA No. 45/03) the purpose of the petitioner will be achieved. On the other hand, because of the non- correction in other certified copies issued in the connected RCAs, no prejudice will be caused to any of the parties. Hence, in our opinion, the Appellate Authority can be directed to issue certified copy of the corrected judgment as requested by the petitioner at the earliest in RCA.45/03, provided the petitioner had re- submitted the certified copy already issued in that particular case.
In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam, is directed to issue corrected certified copy consequent to Ext.P3 order to the petitioner in RCA No. 45/03, within one week from the date of re-opening of courts, without insisting for production of certified copies already issued in other connected RCAs.