Allowed

V.Balan v. P.K.Chathukutty Kurup

Kerala HC2 Jul 2009RCRev./57/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a rent control revision, the Court upheld the eviction order under vacancy due to dilapidation but directed the landlord to complete reconstruction and re-induct the tenant within nine months to compensate for the delay.

What did the court decide?

Landlord to complete ground floor reconstruction within 9 months and reinduct the petitioner; tenant to peacefully surrender the building by 31-12-2009.

V.Balan Vs P.K.Chathukutty Kurup — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931

¶5

RCRev..No. 57 of 2006(A)

¶6

-----------------------------------R.C.A. NO.184/1998 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)-II, THALASSERY. RCP.NO.97/1997 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

V.BALAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 57 YEARS, RATION SHOP, MADHUKOTH, P.O.VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.E.C.BINEESH.

¶11

RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER/ PETITIONER:

¶12

------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

P.K.CHATHUKUTTY KURUP, S/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, LAKSHMI NIVAS, MADHUKOTH, CHELORA AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS. MR.C.KHALID (CAVEATOR), MR.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER, MR.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM, MR.T.P.SAJID.

¶15

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

prv.

¶17

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶18

R.C.Rev. NO. 57 OF 2006 -----------------------------------------------------------DATED : JULY 2, 2009

¶19

ORDER

¶20

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE , J.

¶21

The Revision Petition is filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed U/s. 11(4)(iv) (ground of reconstruction) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control)Act 1965.

¶22

We heard the submission of Mr. C.D.Binish,learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr. T.P.Sajith, learned Counsel for the Respondent. Even though Mr. C.D.Binish has addressed us in detail, we are unable to find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety of the orders of the learned Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority warranting correction under S.20 of the Act. We find that the fact finding authorities have found on the basis of evidence on record that all the statutory pre-requirements has been satisfied. The building was found to be in a dilapidated condition thus warranting re-construction. The landlord was

¶23

R.C. Rev.57/2006 -2-

¶24

found to be the possession of required plan necessary for carrying out the re-construction. The condition of the building was reported by the Advocate Commissioner as the one warranting reconstruction of the building . The petition schedule building is a portion of a larger building and the landlord has successfully filed eviction Petitions on the same ground against the other tenants also. Thus We have no doubt in our mind that the order of eviction passed is legal, proper and regular in all respects. But we find that neither the Rent Control Court nor the Appellate authority has set time frame for carrying out the reconstruction so that the tenant can be inducted into the new building. We feel that the landlord should be given at least 9 months time for completing the reconstruction of the ground floor portion of the proposed two storied building. We direct the landlord to complete the ground floor of the proposed building within 9 months and reinduct the revision petitioner into a room in that floor on liability to pay fair rent. As his last submission, Shri.Binish, Counsel for the Revision

¶25

R.C. Rev.57/2006 -3-

¶26

Petitioner requested to allow time for the Revision Petitioner to surrender the building, we are not inclined to allow that much of time since Shri. T.P.Sajith, Counsel for the Respondent submits that any delay in carrying out the reconstruction of the proposed building will result in escalation of construction cost. In the above circumstances R.C.R is dismissed, adjourning the execution Petition to 1-1-2010 subject to the following conditions;

¶27

The revision petitioner shall;

¶28

“file an affidavit before the execution court stating the Revision Petitioner will peacefully surrender the petition schedule building to the respondent landlord on or before 31-12-2009 and also undertaking in the affidavit that arrears of rent, if any, will be paid within one month from today and will continue to pay rent which falls due till he surrenders.

¶29

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE(JUDGE)

¶30

P.Q.BARKATH ALI (JUDGE)

¶31

pkk

V.Balan v. P.K.Chathukutty Kurup

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Balan v. P.K.Chathukutty Kurup

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alavi Haji Vs Premalatha

The N.T.P.C. Ltd. Vs Vilasini Kunjamma

Vilasini Kunjamma Vs State of Kerala

Kurien Jose Vs State of Kerala

Xavier Vs Special Tahsildar

Padmavathi Sukumaran and Others Vs Assia Beevi and Others