Partly allowed

Mohammed Yusaf v. Kamalakara Panicker

Kerala HC12 Nov 2013OP (RC)/3495/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court modified the Appellate Authority's order. Instead of directing the tenant to pay arrears directly to the landlord, it ordered the amount to be deposited in court to preserve the tenant's right to deny tenancy status during pending eviction proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit ₹91,500/- in court within two months; original petition closed pending RCA outcome.

Mohammed Yusaf Vs Kamalakara Panicker — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/21ST KARTHIKA, 1935

¶7

OP (RC).No. 3495 of 2013 (O)

¶8

----------------------------IA.768/2011 IN RCA.2/2010 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA RCP.3/2008 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, ADOOR

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

MOHAMMED YUSAF S/O.ABDUL KHADER, NIHAL MANZIL, KANNAMCODE MURI ADOOR VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

KAMALAKARA PANICKER KAMALALAYAM, PANNIVIZHA MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE. KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶15

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (RC).No. 3495 of 2013 (O)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN RCP NO.3/2008.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IA NO.768/2011 IN RCA 2/2010.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶22

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4TH SEPTEMBER 2013 IN IA NO.768/2011 IN RCA 2/2010.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

PA to Judge

¶26

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶27

¶28

O.P.(RC) No.3495 of 2013 A

¶29

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2013

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶32

Kemal Pasha, J.

¶33

The tenant, who is the counter petitioner in I.A.No.768/2011 in R.C.A. No.2/2010, is challenging an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

¶34

The landlord is claiming right of fixity of tenure over the building in question. It is the admitted case that the present landlord, who claims fixity of tenure, has inducted the present petitioner as a tenant in one of the rooms in the

¶35

OP(RC).3495/2013

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

building. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the land as well as the building from the then landlord of the present landlord, through a sale deed in the year 2006. The case of the tenant is that he is not bound to pay any rent at all to the present landlord as he has obtained title over the building as well as the land.

¶38

The landlord has approached the Rent Control Court for an order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Even though the tenant has resisted the RCP, ultimately, the RCP was allowed, against which RCA No.2/2010 has been preferred by the tenant, which is pending even now. The landlord claimed arrears of rent through an IA filed under Section 12 of the Act in the RCA. The learned Appellate Authority found that the tenant is bound to pay the arrears of rent amounting to ₹91,500/- and directed the tenant to pay the said amount to the landlord on or before 09.10.2013, or to show sufficient cause to the contrary. The said order is under challenge in this original

OP(RC).3495/2013

: 3 :

petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶43

petitioner/tenant and the respondent/landlord. In the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the petitioner would not have any serious heartburn in the matter, had he been directed to deposit the amount in court instead of directing him to pay the amount directly to the landlord. The said argument is forwarded on the basis that the payment of arrears of rent under Section 12 of the Act will, amount to an admission of the landlord-tenant relationship in between the respondent and the petitioner, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, may create hardships in deciding the bonafides of the denial of the title of the respondent, under Section 11(1) of the Act. When the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed the willingness of the petitioner to deposit the amount as ordered by the court below before the Rent Control Court, we are of the view that this original

¶44

OP(RC).3495/2013

¶45

: 4 :

¶46

petition can be closed with a direction to the petitioner to deposit the amount, within a period of two months from today before the Rent Control Court, without prejudice to his right, to challenge an order of eviction under Section 11(2) (b) of the Act, as well as to get a finding regarding the bonafides , if any, on his claim under Section 11(1) of the Act. The said amount shall be kept as a deposit in court and the landlord shall not withdraw the amount during the pendency of the RCA.

¶47

OP(RC) is closed as above.

¶48

Sd/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶49

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶50

aks/12/11

¶51

// True Copy //

¶52

PA to Judge

Mohammed Yusaf v. Kamalakara Panicker

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Yusaf v. Kamalakara Panicker

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

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Auditor

M.P.Thilakan Vs a.C.Thomas

Kadungon Moideenkutty Vs Panakavil Bharathan

General Manager ,Abt Parcel Service Vs P K Jameela

K.C. Ashokan Vs Kandathil Sasidharan

Thiruvithamkore Devaswom Empolyees Front Vs Travankore Devaswom Board