This regular second appeal challenged the lower appellate court's finding that respondents were tenants entitled to protection under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the finding of a landlord-tenant relationship was not perverse and was not warranted for interference.
Appeal dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932
RSA.No. 597 of 2010()
------------------------------AS.151/2000 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.240/1997 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT- APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF
------------------------------------------------------
ABDULKARIM, S/O.MYTHEEN KUNJU, KUTHIRA PANTHI BUNGLOW (BEENA MANZIL), THEVALLY CHERRY, KOLLAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN, SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM).
RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS-DEFENDANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. RETNA BAI, W/O.BALACHANDRA SHENOY, CHIRAKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KADAVOOR CHERRY, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
2. SRI VALSA KUMAR, S/O.BALACHANDRA SHENOI, DO. DO.
3. PADMA KUMARI, D/O.BALACHANDRA SHENOI, DO. DO.
4. ANITHA KUMARI, D/O.BALACHANDRA SHENOI, DO. DO.
5. M/S.DHARSANA TRADERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.DINEESH KINI, M.C.789, THEVALLY CHERRY, KOLLAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
6. R.N. SATHEESH, PARTNER, M/S.DHARSANA TRADERS, DO. DO.
7. NARAYANA PAI, PARTNER, DO. DO.
RSA.No. 597 of 2010
8. DHANYA G.RAO, PARTNER, DO. DO.
9. M.BALACHANDRAN (KALLADA), ADVOCATE, M.C.793, MEMALIKA BHAGAM, THEVALLY, KOLLAM.
10. K.RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE, DO. DO.
11. VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN P.N., YANOOIONSIL, PUNNATHALA CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
12. RAJ KUMAR, DO. DO.
13. MANJU, D/O.LATE RADHA, DO. DO.
14. AJITH KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, DO. DO.
BY
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
------------------------------------RSA No.597 of 2010 ------------------------------------Dated 12th July 2010
Judgment
This appeal arises from the Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court in AS No.151/00. The plaintiff is the appellant.
RSA 597/10
2
The said claim was accepted. These findings, according to
the appellant, are clearly wrong and unsustainable in law.
all. As far as defendants 6 to 9 in the suit are concerned, they were occupying room No.MC 792 and conducting business in Ayurvedic medicines. The Trial Court has found that the predecessor in interest Sri.Balachandra Shenoy was conducting business in the said room till his death on 20.04.1992. This claim was supported by evidence on record. It is also found by the Trial Court that rent was being periodically enhanced. Defendants 6 to 9 also produced the document said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiff and also the rent receipts issued by the plaintiff. Therefore, their contention that they are entitled to continue in the premises in spite of the claim made by the appellant, was accepted by the Trial Court.
3
RSA 597/10
the appeal were tenants under the 5th respondent in the appeal or the appellant. The appellant contended that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between him and defendants 6 to 9 and therefore, they are not entitled to continue in the premises.
RSA 597/10
4
defendants 6 to 9, who are respondents 6 to 9 in the appeal before the Court below are tenants entitled to protection of Act 2 of 1965, is based on evaluation of the evidence on record and it is a finding of fact. Both the courts below have found that there is a landlord-tenant relationship between the appellant and respondents 6 to 9. It is not shown that the findings of the courts below are either perverse or not warranted by evidence on record.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
RSA 597/10 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that respondents 6 to 9 are tenants entitled to protection under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is liable to be overturned.
Whether the appellant has established merits to interfere with the findings that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the appellant and respondents 6 to 9.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ABDULKARIM, S/O.MYTHEEN KUNJU
DHANYA G.RAO, PARTNER
M.BALACHANDRAN (KALLADA), ADVOCATE
K.RADHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE
P.BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
