Dismissed

Panayan Rajan v. Hassan Kurikkalakath Shahin

Kerala HC7 Feb 2011RCRev./211/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition challenging an eviction order confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority based on arrears of rent and bona fide need, the High Court found no error. The revision was dismissed with a stay of execution conditioned on the tenant filing an affidavit to surrender the property and pay dues by August 30, 2011.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; execution stayed pending execution of undertaking by the tenant to surrender and clear dues.

Panayan Rajan Vs Hassan Kurikkalakath Shahin — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

RCRev..No. 211 of 2006() -----------------------RCA.138/2002 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY RCP.92/2000 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR

¶6

REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶7

¶8

PANAYAN RAJAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, SARADA VIHAR, P.O.IRIVERI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶11

¶12

HASSAN KURIKKALAKATH SHAHINA, D/O. MUSTHAFA, AGE NOT KNOWN, SHAREENA'S ANAYIDUCK, KANNUR, REP. BY P.A.HOLDER C.P.KUNHALI, S/O. MOOSA, AGED 49, BEEVI MANZIL, MAYANMUKKU, P.O.KANHIRODE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA

¶14

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER ON I.A.NO.1434 0F 2006 IN R.C.R.NO.211 OF 2006

¶16

DISMISSED.

¶17

7.2.2011 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶18

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

¶19

R.C.R No.211 of 2006

¶20

Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011

¶21

Order

¶22

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶23

Under challenge this revision filed by the tenant is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court against the revision petitioner on the grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide need for own occupation. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court as well as the judgment of the Appellate Authority. We are convinced that the findings concurrently entered by the two statutory authorities regarding the existence of the grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide need of own occupation are founded on the legal evidence available on record. The learned Appellate Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final court on facts has made a thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence and has endorsed the findings of the Rent Control Court giving very strong reasons. It is noticed that the learned Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court that the need projected by the

¶24

RCR 211/06 2

¶25

landlord under Section 11(3) (which was in fact the need of none other than P.W.1) is a bonafide one. We find that the implications of the two provisos, the first and second to subsection (3) of Section 11 have also been correctly considered by the Appellate Authority keeping in mind judicial precedents which govern the issue. In short, we do not find any irregularity, impropriety or illegality as envisaged by Section 20 about the judgment of the Appellate Authority. Revision fails and the same will stand dismissed. However, we direct the execution court to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till 30.8.2011 subject to the following conditions:

¶26

The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within three weeks from today before the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to surrender the building peacefully to the respondent on or before 30.8.2011.

¶27

Through the same affidavit, he should also undertake to discharge the arrears of rent found by the Rent Control Court to be due from him within one month and to pay occupational charges at the existing rent rate till he surrenders the building.

¶28

We make it clear that the revision petitioner will get the

¶29

RCR 211/06 3

¶30

benefit of time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time and honours the undertakings given by him.

¶31

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶32

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶33

srd

Panayan Rajan v. Hassan Kurikkalakath Shahin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panayan Rajan v. Hassan Kurikkalakath Shahin

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

Inland Waterways Authority of India Vs James

Kochi Refineries Ltd. Vs Thampi

State of Kerala Vs Yasodharan & Another

Fathima Vs P.v.Paulose

Rajan Babu Vs Viswanatha Pillai

K.Radha Vs Chandrika