Partly allowed

Ittimathew v. Rosily

Kerala HC21 Oct 2010RCRev./325/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the order dismissing a stay petition in a rent control appeal. The stay was allowed tentatively with stringent conditions including a conditional rent re-fixation, payment of costs to the respondent, and payment to the Legal Services Committee.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Stay allowed tentatively with re-fixation of rent at Rs. 3,000/month, Rs. 5,000 costs to respondent, and Rs. 5,000 to Legal Services Committee payable within 10 days.

Ittimathew Vs Rosily — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932

¶4

RCRev..No. 325 of 2010()

¶5

-----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/10/2010 IN IA 3250/2010 IN RCA.52/2010 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY , THRISSUR RCP.24/2007 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶7

¶8

ITTIMATHEW, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.CHEERANVEETTIL CHERU, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR SRI.K.P.SAILESH (KECHERY)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶11

¶12

ROSILY, W/O.NEDUMBULLY CHACHU, MISSION QUARTERS, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) T.C.SURESH MENON

¶14

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶16

R.C.R.No. 325 OF 2010

¶17

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2010 O R D E R

¶18

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶19

Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is an

¶20

order passed by the 1^st Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in I.A. No.3250/2010. The above I.A. was a stay petition. The ground, which is prominently urged in this revision petition, is that the learned appellate authority, having admitted the appeal and called for the records, ought to have granted stay pending disposal of the appeal.

¶21

We have heard the submissions of Sri.K.N.Padmakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and those of Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

¶22

The one point that was urged before us most seriously by Mr.Padmakumar was that the learned appellate authority by dismissing the stay petition has virtually rendered the appeal, which is already admitted and kept pending, infructuous.

¶23

The answer of Mr.Chitambaresh to the above

¶24

RCR.No. 325/2010 2

¶25

submission was that this is a case where the revision petitioner tenant was wilfully absenting himself whenever the RCP stood posted for enquiry by the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court had no option other than to pass the order which is impugned before the appellate authority. The appeal is without any merits and this is why the learned appellate authority declined to grant stay. Mere admission of an appeal need not result in automatic stay of the proceedings for execution. Stay if at all can be granted only by imposing reasonable conditions. Mr.Chitambaresh requested that this court may mulct the petitioner with heavy cost apart from imposing other reasonable conditions. According to Mr.Chitambaresh, the building has a total carpet area of 650 sq.ft on the High Road, Thrissur. The learned counsel submitted that if this building is let out today, the same will fetch rent at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶26

Mr.Padmakumar's reply was that this is a case where the only ground invoked is the ground under Section 11(3). The petitioner is not a defaulter at all in the matter of rent. Even if there was some default on the part of the revision

¶27

RCR.No. 325/2010 3

¶28

petitioner in appearing before the Rent Control Court, the appellate authority may be justified in imposing terms. This court may not proceed to impose costs.

¶29

Having anxiously considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that relief can be given to the petitioner only on very stringent terms. We find much force in the submission of Mr.Chitambaresh that the monthly rent of Rs.300/- which is being paid by the revision petitioner fixed decades ago, is far below the rent if the building may fetch if the same is let out now. We are, therefore, inclined to refix the rent tentatively. We also feel that the revision petitioner has to pay penalty for his negligence in the matter of participating in the enquiry by the Rent Control Court. We are inclined to impose conditions in that context also. We are sure that while disposing of the RCA, the learned appellate authority will have due regard to the fact that this court has already imposed conditions.

¶30

The result of the above discussions is as follows;

¶31

The impugned order is set aside and I.A. No.3250/2010 will stand allowed subject to the following conditions;

¶32

RCR.No. 325/2010 4

¶33

i). The rent payable by the revision petitioner for the building in question will stand tentatively refixed with effect from 1/11/2010 at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is open to either party to approach the Rent Control Court for regular fixation of fair rent. Till such time as fair rent is fixed, the revision petitioner shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month.

¶34

ii). The revision petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as

¶35

costs to the respondent either directly or through the respondent's counsel.

¶36

Iii).The revision petitioner shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶37

iv). The above two payments shall be made within 10 days from today. Receipts against payment of the above amounts shall be produced before the appellate authority.

¶38

v). If the appellate authority notice receipts against payment of both the above amounts on time, that authority will post the RCA peremptorily for hearing during the first week of November 2010 and the appellate authority will ensure that the appeal is heard and disposed of without further delay.

¶39

We make it clear that if there is non compliance of any of

¶40

RCR.No. 325/2010

¶41

¶42

the conditions stipulated herein above by the revision petitioner,

¶43

the impugned order will stand confirmed.

¶44

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶45

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

¶46

dpk

Ittimathew v. Rosily

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ittimathew v. Rosily

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

State Vs Kalyani Amma Rugmini Amma

Krishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs M.R.Balakrishna Menon

K.P.Karunakaran Nair Vs R.Sudhamani Amma and Another

Juga Bhal Vs P.C.Narendran

Payyanat Devaki Vs Ovintakath Kurukkandiyil Fousiya