Dismissed

K.Koran v. P.v.Madhavi and Another

Kerala HC15 Jun 2011RCRev./147/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this rent control revision, the tenant challenged the eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. The High Court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority. The revision was dismissed with a one-year grace period to surrender possession.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; tenant granted time up to 31/01/2012 to surrender possession subject to filing affidavit and payment of arrears.

K.Koran Vs P.v.Madhavi and Another — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

RCRev..No. 147 of 2011()

¶6

-----------------------RCA.6/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD RCP.4/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDRUG

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT

¶8

¶9

K.KORAN,AGED 71,S/O.KUTTIAN, ALAMIVALAPPU, PALAKKUNNU,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

P.V.MATHAI,AGED 75, W/O.P.V.APPA, KOOVATHOTTY, CHEMNAD VILLAGE, CHEMNAD VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT - 671 317.

¶14

LAKSHMANAN,S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, PALAKKUNNU,PALLIKERA VILLAGE, P.O BEKAL, KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 318.

¶15

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.

¶17

¶18

R.C.R.NO.147 OF 2011

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2011

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Barkath Ali, J.

¶22

In this revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings ( Lease

¶23

and Rent Control) Act 1965 ( herein after referred to as the 'Act'), the tenant challenges the judgment of Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶24

The respondent/landlady filed the O.P. before the Rent Control Court , Hosdurg seeking eviction under Section 11(2),11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act on the ground that the tenant has kept rent in arrears, that she bonafide requires the petition schedule building for her dependent son Narayanan for starting business in grocery items and that without her consent, the tenant has subleased the shop room to the second respondent in the petition.

¶25

Revision petitioner/tenant resisted the claim contending

¶26

that the bonafide need urged by the landlady is not genuine, that he is

¶27

RCR.No.147/2011 2

¶28

still conducting chitty business in the petition schedule shop room, that he is depending mainly on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and that no other suitable building is available in the locality to shift his business and that he has not subleased the shop room to the second respondent.

¶29

PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the landlady before the Rent Control Court. RWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B5 series were marked on the side of the tenant. On an appreciation of evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the landlady bonafide need the petition schedule shop room for her son to conduct business in grocery items and that the tenant is not entitled to the benefits of first and second proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 11 and ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, but rejected the claim under Section 11(2) and 11(4)(i) of the Act.

¶30

On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant has now come up in revision challenging the said judgment of the Appellate Authority.

¶31

RCR.No.147/2011 3

¶32

We have gone through the evidence adduced by the landlady and tenant before the Rent Control Court and the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority under Section 11(3) of the Act. We find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 20 of the Act. That being so, the revision petition has to be dismissed.

¶33

Sri.Suresh Kumar Kodoth, learned counsel for the revision petitioner requested for one year's time to surrender the building. Taking into consideration the fact that the tenant is conducting chitty business in the petition schedule building, which he has to shift to some other place, we feel that time upto January 31, 2012 can be granted to the revision petitioner to surrender possession of the building on the following conditions ;

¶34

The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the execution court on or before

¶35

RCR.No.147/2011

¶36

¶37

June 30, 2011 agreeing to surrender peaceful possession of the petition schedule building to the landlady on or before 31/01/2012. On receipt of the said affidavit, the execution court shall defer the delivery to 01/02/2012.

¶38

The tenant shall pay arrears of rent upto date to the landlady on or before June 30, 2011 and future rent as and when the same falls due till the date of surrender, failing which, the tenant will not be entitled to the benefit of the time granted by this order.

¶39

The Revision Petition is dismissed with the above directions. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.

¶40

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

¶41

P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE

¶42

sv.

¶43

RCR.No.147/2011 5

¶44

RCR.No.147/2011 6

K.Koran v. P.v.Madhavi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Koran v. P.v.Madhavi 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

K.Rajamani Vs K.K.Joses

Nishamol P.N. Vs Joji G.Ambattu

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Unnikrishnan

Rosily Vs Mrs.De La Victor Isabella

Jayesh.C. Vs Roshith

United India Insurance Company Vs P.C.Sharmila