Partly allowed

Suresh Babu v. Jose Alex

Kerala HC18 Feb 2011RCRev./291/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a rent control revision challenging an eviction order. While confirming the eviction was justified due to the landlord's bona fide need, the court modified the judgment to impose a rider requiring the landlord to resign her job before the tenant vacates the premises. The rent was also fixed at Rs. 900 per month.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order confirmed subject to rider: Landlady must resign and file affidavit in execution court before delivery warrant is issued. Rent fixed at Rs. 900.

Suresh Babu Vs Jose Alex — Landlord and Tenant | 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 FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932

¶4

RCRev..No. 291 of 2008() --------------------------------RCA.35/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM R.C.(OP).40/2004 of ADDL./RENT CONTROL COURT, KOLLAM ....................

¶5

REVISION PETITIONER:APPELLANT:COUNTER PETITIONER :-

¶6

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

¶7

SURESH BABU, ELAMPALLOOR, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR SMT.C.G.PREETHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:PETITIONER :-

¶10

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

¶11

JOSE ALEX, COMPANY KADAYIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA P.O., KOLLAM.

¶12

ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON FOR R1

¶13

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

jvt

¶15

RCRev..No. 291 of 2008

¶16

ORDER IN I.A.No.2683/2008 IN RCR No.291/2008

¶17

Dismissed.

¶18

SD/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶19

SD/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

18.2.2011

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge

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

¶24

---------------------------------R.C.R. No.291 of 2008

¶25

Dated this the 18^th day of February 2011

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶28

The tenant challenges in his revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 the order of eviction passed against him concurrently by the learned Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court on the ground of arrears of rent and on the ground of bonafide need for own occupation. As regards the ground of arrears of rent, the contention was only that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner in the RCP and the respondent in the RCP. What was contended was that the building was taken on lease from the father of the petitioner in the RCP. The statutory authorities have noticed that the tenant does not dispute his status in the building as a tenant. His dispute was only as to who was the landlord. The

¶29

R.C.R. No.291 of 2008

¶30

-: 2 :-

¶31

statutory authorities in this context noticed that there was no contention for the tenant that Ext.A1 Assignment Deed under which the petitioner in the RCP obtained title is a sham document. In that view of the matter the landlord's case regarding the arrears of rent (quantum of rent in arrears) which was not specifically disputed was accepted and order of eviction was passed under Section 11(2)(b).

¶32

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner Smt.Preetha would assail the finding of the statutory authorities that the need is bonafide. According to her the landlord's wife who had already secured an employment in Vimala Hridya HSS for Girls, Kollam as a teacher, at the time when she mounted to the witness box for giving evidence. She suppressed that fact in the affidavit also. But in the chief examination she admitted that she is working as a guest teacher in Vimala Hridya HSS, Kollam. But the evidence produced by the tenant before the Appellate Authority will show that it is a regular approved job that she had secured in Vimala Hridya HSS. According to the learned counsel, the

¶33

R.C.R. No.291 of 2008

¶34

-: 3 :-

¶35

learned Appellate Authority has ignored this circumstance and described the same to be a subsequent event which does not eclipse the need projected.

¶36

Mr.Milton, the learned counsel for the landlord would submit that even if PW1 has secured a permanent employment, father of the landlord is presently without any employment and it will be possible for him to conduct the proposed computer institute in the petition schedule building. We are not impressed by the reply submitted by Mr.Milton. It is more or less evident that PW1 cannot continue the regular job in an aided school and at the same time conduct a private institute. If she wants to conduct a computer institute as projected in the RC proceedings, she will have to give up the job.

¶37

On examination of the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court we do not find any infirmity about the appreciation of the evidence by the two authorities. We are therefore inclined to confirm the finding that the need is bonafide. At the same time in our

¶38

R.C.R. No.291 of 2008

¶39

-: 4 :-

¶40

view that PW1 will not be able to work as a regular teacher in Vimala Hridya HSS and simultaneously conduct a computer training institute in the petition schedule building. We are of the view that a rider has to be incorporated in the eviction order to ensure that PW1 is able to conduct the proposed computer institute. We are therefore, inclined to modify the judgment of the Appellate Authority to that extent. Even though Smt.Preetha addressed very strenuous arguments that the finding of the statutory authorities that the tenant is not entitled for the protection of 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3) is illegal, irregular and improper, we are not able to agree with her. Result of the above discussion therefore is as follows :-

¶41

The judgment of the learned Appellate Authority and the order of the learned Rent Control Court are confirmed subject to a condition that before the Execution Court orders delivery, PW1 will have to file an affidavit before that court to the effect that she has already resigned her job with Vimala Hridya HSS and that she will occupy the petition schedule building for conducting the proposed computer training

¶42

R.C.R. No.291 of 2008

¶43

-: 5 :-

¶44

institute. Delivery warrant will be issued by the learned Munsiff to the Ameen only on noticing the said affidavit. The affidavit as directed above shall be filed by PW1 with notice to the tenant. We refix the rent at Rs.900/- per mensem with effect from 1.4.2011 subject to right of either party to move the Rent Control Court for regular fixation of fair rent under Section 5.

¶45

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶46

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,

¶47

Jvt

Suresh Babu v. Jose Alex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu v. Jose Alex

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

Cholakkal Choppala Hamza Haji Vs the Special Deputy Collector (La)

T.P.Satheesan Pillai Vs v.a.Noorjahan

State of Kerala,Rep.by Spl.Tahsildar Vs K.Appukuttan Pillai

Chief Project Manager,Railway Electrific Vs Aji Kurien

Sri.C.K.Bhaskaran Vs Smt.Mottemmal Seenath and Another

T.K.Kuttimalu & Others Vs Sivadasan & Others