Dismissed

Payyanat Devaki & Others v. Ovintakath Karukkandiyil Fousiya

Kerala HC1 Apr 2011OP (RC)/1346/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A rent control tenant challenged the eviction execution order under Article 227, claiming the landlords' affidavit of readiness to commence business did not conform to the stay order. The High Court dismissed the petition but directed a suspension of delivery proceedings to allow for an interim settlement.

What did the court decide?

Superseded: Delivery proceedings stayed till 8-4-2011 to explore a settlement for enhanced rent and continued possession until court reopens.

Payyanat Devaki & Others Vs Ovintakath Karukkandiyil… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933

¶4

OP (RC).No. 1346 of 2011(O)

¶5

--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/03/2011 IN EP 161/2005 IN RCP.248/1997 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR

¶6

PETITIONERS

¶7

¶8

PAYYANAT DEVAKI,W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PAYYANAT HOUSE,KACHERITHARA PO, IRINAVU,TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISRTICT.

¶9

ANITHA,D/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PAYYANAT HOUSE,KACHERITHARA PO, IRINAVU,TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISRTICT.

¶10

RANJITH,S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PAYYANAT HOUSE,KACHERITHARA PO, IRINAVU,TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISRTICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

¶14

OVINTAKATH KARUKKANDIYIL FOUSIYA, D/O.MUHAMMED,KAVINMOOLA,ANCHARAKANDI AMSOM, MAMBA DESOM,KANNUR TALUK. PIN 670019

¶15

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶17

OP. No. 1346 of 2011

¶18

Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶21

The tenant judgment debtor in a proceeding for execution of eviction order passed under the provisions of

¶22

the Rent Control Act finally confirmed by this Court under Ext. P1, is the petitioner in this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. He challenges the order of the execution court dated 25-3-2011, which is extracted at page No. 4 of the O.P. as follows:

¶23

PW-2 present affidavit filed his readiness to start the proposed business in the petition schedule building, same is filed as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Hence I find no other impediment in deputing amin to effect delivery. Hence amin is deputed to effect delivery on 05-04-2011 report on 06-04-2011.”

¶24

Under Ext.P1 we confirmed the order and directed the

¶25

execution court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till such time as PW-2 appears before that court and

¶26

-2-

¶27

swears to an affidavit stating that he will be commencing his proposed business in the petition schedule building within a period of one month of his getting actual possession. According to Advocate Gopakumar appearing for the petitioner, Ext.P3 affidavit filed by PW-2 before the execution court does not conform to the requirements under Ext.P1. We cannot agree. We find that Ext.P3 perfectly conforms to the requirements of Ext.P1. We don't find any warrant for invoking visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 to interfere with the order passed by the execution court on 25-3-2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner would now appeal for grant of time till the civil court reopens after midsummer holidays for the petitioner to vacate the premises. We cannot agree to the above request in the absence of the landlord decree holder. We dismiss the O.P. However, we direct the execution court to keep in abeyance the order of delivery till 8-4-2011. The

¶28

-3-

¶29

execution court will, on 5-4-2011 before issuing delivery warrant to the amin, explore the possibility of a settlement between the parties under which the petitioner pays higher rent to the landlord and the landlord allows him to continue in the building till the court re-opens after midsummer holidays.

¶30

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶31

(K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶32

ksv/-

Payyanat Devaki & Others v. Ovintakath Karukkandiyil Fousiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Payyanat Devaki & Others v. Ovintakath Karukkandiyil Fousiya

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 of Kerala Vs Gee Varghese Mammen and Another

Aarummarakath Abdulla Musaliyar Vs Parol Abdul Nasser

M.C.Nalini Vs Special Thasildar

K.a.Stephen Vs Town Juma Masjid, Kalady

Varghese, S/O.Ouseph & Another Vs State of Kerala

Souda Vs State of Kerala & Another