Appellant sought eviction relief for a building formerly allotted as employee residence after retirement. Court dismissed appeal but granted four months to vacate subject to conditions of no transfer, damage, or bringing third parties.
Appellant granted four months time to vacate the building subject to conditions; appeal dismissed.
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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/29TH JYAISHTA 1934
RSA.No. 720 of 2012 ()
AS.86/2011 of II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHA OS.239/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
RATHINAM.M.P.
VIII/457 FOR 1977-02, XIII/1007 FOR 2003 SEVEN MALAY DIVISION, LAXMI ESTATE MUNNAR KDH VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.J.MICHAEL
SRI.JOSE MATHEW KAVALAKALAM
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
M/S.KDHP CO.PVT.LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED IN INDIA WITH REGISTERED OFFICE AT KDHP HOUSE, NH-49, MUNNAR KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C.SREEKUMAR, ASSISTANT MANAGER, KDHP CO.PVT LTD., MUNNAR KDH VILLAGE-685612, MUNNAR.P.O.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
R.S.A. No.720 of 2012
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2012.
JUDGMENT
Defendant in O.S.No.239 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Devikulam suffered a decree for eviction from the building referred to in the plaint schedule. Learned II Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha refused to interfere with that judgment and decree in A.S.No.86 of 20112. Hence the Second Appeal.
2
RSA No.720/2012
question. The said building was allotted to the appellant by M/s.Tata Tea Ltd. as per Sec.15 of the Kerala Plantation Labour Act (for short, “the Labour Act”). A further contention is that respondent can seek his eviction only on payment of all the benefits due to him on retirement.
3
RSA No.720/2012
let in by the appellant. He has no case that the building belongs to him. His claim is only that the building was allotted to him by M/s.Tata Tea Ltd. and it is not shown that the said company is the predecessor-in-interest of respondent. Ext.A2 shows that the building belongs to the respondent.
4
RSA No.720/2012
Resultantly this Second Appeal is dismissed.
Appellant is granted four (4) months time from this day to vacate the building referred to in the plaint schedule subject to the following conditions:
i. Appellant shall, by the expiry of the said period of four (4) months vacate the building referred to in the plaint schedule without putting forth any claim or objection on any count whatsoever.
5
RSA No.720/2012
ii. Appellant shall not, during the said period transfer,
encumber or induct third parties into possession of the building.
iii. Appellant shall not cause any damage to the said building or make additional structures to it.
iv. Appellant shall file affidavit in the trial court within two weeks from this day undertaking to comply with the above conditions.
v. In case any of the conditions above stated is violated it will be open to the respondent to proceed with execution of the decree notwithstanding the time granted hereby.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.
cks
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.S.A.No.406 of 2007Referred¶7
RATHINAM M.P.
M/S.KDHP CO.PVT.LTD.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
