Dismissed

Thomas Mathew v. K.M.Meerannan

Kerala HC24 Sept 2010RSA/480/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular second appeal by a defendant in a rent-recovery suit challenging eviction was dismissed. The court held that the Court below correctly upheld the tenancy arrangement. The appellant’s novel plea regarding the bar on eviction due to alleged rent control notification was rejected, with the court noting the issue can be raised during execution.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal was dismissed.

Thomas Mathew Vs K.M.Meerannan — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932

¶5

RSA.NO. 480 OF 2010()

¶6

--------------------{A.S.NO.104/2007 OF SUB COURT, PALA

¶7

IN O.S.NO.118/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, ERATTUPETTA}

¶8

APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶9

¶10

THOMAS MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLLAKOMBIL HOUSE, MUNDAKAYAM KARA, MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SHASHI KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶13

¶14

K.M.MEERANNAN, S/O.MOOSAVUKHAN, KOCHANIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KOOTTICKAL P.O., KOOTTICKAL KARA, KOOTICKAL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶17

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

¶18

R.S.A.No.480 of 2010

¶19

--------------------------------------Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2010

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The defendant in a suit for arrears of rent has filed this appeal challenging the concurrent decision rendered by the two courts below, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

¶22

The respondent claimed a decree for eviction of the appellant with arrears of rent alleging a tenancy arrangement over the building covered by the suit. The appellant disputed the tenancy arrangement and also challenged the title of the plaintiff over the property. Both the courts concurrently found in favour of the plaintiff upholding the tenancy arrangement pleaded over the building with the defendant/appellant on the basis of the materials tendered in the case. The only point canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant to impeach the decree is based on the premise that a notification had been issued under Section 23 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 2/1965 {for short “the Act”}, in respect of

¶23

R.S.A.No.480 of 2010

¶24

:: 2 ::

¶25

the area covering the building that the provisions of the said Act is applicable and so much so, the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the decree for eviction of the appellant.

¶26

The plea now canvassed for

¶27

entertaining this second appeal admittedly was not raised before any of the courts below. The decree granted for recovery of the plaint schedule property and also to realise the loss of profit on the scheduled building. At least to that extent, the respondent is entitled to execute the decree. The question of eviction of the appellant, pursuant to the decree is barred or not, in case there is a notification as canvassed by the appellant, can be raised before the execution court as well.

¶28

I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

sk/-

¶30

//true copy//

Thomas Mathew v. K.M.Meerannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Mathew v. K.M.Meerannan

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

Gopalan Vs Kunhayyappakutty

K.C.Varkey Vs Saramma George

Pocken Rameshan Vs Pocken Narayanan

K.T.Baby Vs Annamma Abraham

Smt.R.Seethammal Vs Sub Group Officer

Sivasankara Pillai Vs R.Muthuswamy