Dismissed

P.M. Pushkaran v. Dr.Jio John and Another

Kerala HC20 Dec 2010RCRev./394/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition against an eviction order. The court confirmed the eviction under Section 11(3) but granted the tenant time until 31/12/2011 to vacate if he filed an affidavit and paid occupational charges of Rs.1,000 monthly.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to tenant to vacate by 31/12/2011 subject to filing affidavit, paying arrears, and depositing Rs.1,000 monthly occupational charges.

P.M. Pushkaran Vs Dr.Jio John and Another — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶6

RCRev..No. 394 of 2010()

¶7

-----------------------RCA.65/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY , ERNAKULAM RCP.211/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM)

¶8

PETITIONER (S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶9

¶10

P.M.PUSHKARAN, AGED 76,

¶11

S/O.LATE V.K.MADHAVAN, NEW KERALA ENGINEERING WORKS, BUILDING NO.40/2191, PRESS CLUB ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶13

SRI.P.VISWANATHAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶15

¶16

DR.JOJO JOHN, AGED 37, DENTIST, S/O.CHOOLAKKAL JOHN MATHEW, CHOOLAKKAL HOUSE, PRESS CLUB ROAD, KOCHI-682011.

¶17

MATHEW JOHN, AGED 40, DENTIST, S/O.CHOOLAKKAL JOHN MATHEW, CHOOLAKKAL HOUSE, PRESS CLUB ROAD, KOCHI-682011.

¶18

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶20

R.C.R.No. 394 OF 2010

¶21

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2010

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Balakrishnan, J.

¶24

The tenant has come up in revision against the order of eviction passed against him under Section 11(3) of the Act. The rent control petition was filed under Section 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The landlords contended that the petition schedule building is required for their bona fide own occupation. It was also contended that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building and also used the building in such a manner as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently.

¶25

The petition was opposed by the tenant contending that the need projected by the landlords is not bonafide. The claim for eviction under section 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) was resisted by the tenant raising necessary plea.

¶26

The first respondent landlord is a dentist by

¶27

profession and his brother, the second respondent, is an advocate. It is contended that they require one portion of the petition schedule building for conducting a dental clinic and

¶28

RCR.No.394/2010 2

¶29

another portion for the 2^nd respondent to use it as his office. Though the need projected by the landlords was strongly opposed by the tenants, after analising the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller found that the need projected by the landlords is true. The prayer for eviction under section 11(4)(ii) and section 11(4)(iv) was disallowed by the Rent Controller. The tenant could not establish the ingredients required for getting protection of the second proviso to section 11(3) of the Act and hence the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the tenant also met with same fate.

¶30

Sri.P.Viswanathan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant has taken us through the various grounds urged by him challenging the findings entered by the authorities below. It was also contended that the landlords do not require the petitioner schedule building for the purpose for which they sought eviction. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction can not embark upon a reappreciation of evidence and substitute its own conclusion. The decisions were

¶31

RCR.No.394/2010

¶32

¶33

rendered by the authorities below on a proper understanding of the facts and law.

¶34

We find that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the findings entered by the courts below. We are satisfied that the courts below, after analysing the evidence properly, have come to the right conclusion and as such the order of eviction passed under Section 11 (3) is to be confirmed.

¶35

At this juncture, Sri.Viswanathan, the learned counsel for the tenant, made a fervent request to grant one and half years time to the tenant to surrender possession of the petition schedule building. We think we will not be justified in granting such a long period, that too without hearing the landlords. But, Considering all the aspects, we find that it would be just and proper to grant time till 31/12/2011 to vacate the premises subject to certain conditions.

¶36

It is stated that the present monthly rent paid by the tenant is Rs.650/-. We think, it is to be slightly increased and that it would be proper to fix Rs.1,000/- as occupational charges to be paid by the tenant for future occupation till he surrenders the possession of the building.

¶37

RCR.No.394/2010

¶38

¶39

In the result the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner/tenant is granted time till 31/12/2011 to vacate the building subject to following conditions;

¶40

The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlords on or before 31/12/2011 and undertaking further that he will discharge the entire arrears of rent if any within one month from today and further that he will continue to pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month with effect from 1/1/2011 as and when the same falls due till he surrenders possession of the building.

¶41

It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get benefit of time granted above only if he files affidavit within three weeks from today and honours the undertakings in the affidavit.

¶42

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶43

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶44

dpk

P.M. Pushkaran v. Dr.Jio John and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M. Pushkaran v. Dr.Jio John and Another

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

Ayyappallil Ebrahim Vs P.Narayana Menon Kutty Nair

Krishna Kumar Vs Mohanan Nair

Vijayalekshmi Ammal Vs Thankamma

Raseena Vs Anvar

Chandanaveettil Shantha Vs P.v.Shantha Kumari

Jose & Another Vs P.S.Mathai