Disposed

M.J.Sebastian v. Preetha

Kerala HC7 Nov 2013OP (RC)/3624/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered the Rent Control Court to decide interlocutory applications on merits regarding denial of landlord-tenant relationship under Section 11(1). The main rent control petitions for fair rent fixation were disposed of with a direction to dispose of the main matters within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Rent Control Court to decide interlocutory applications on merits and dispose of main petitions within three months.

M.J.Sebastian Vs Preetha — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/16TH KARTHIKA, 1935 OP (RC).No. 3624 of 2013 (O) -----------------------------

¶5

I.A.No.1418/2012 IN RCP 8/2012 of RENT CONTROL COURT,ALUVA

¶6

PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT IN RCP NO 8/2012 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROL MCOURT, ALUVA: ---------------------------------------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

M.J.SEBASTIAN, AGED 65 YEARS S/O JOHN, MANAYIL HOUSE RESIDING AT JUBILEE TOWN LIMIT ROAD PATTERIPURAM KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ENRAKULAM DISTIRCT BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM) SRI.P.J.JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN RCP NO 8/2012 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROL MCOURT, ALUVA:

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

PREETHA, W/O PALATTY JOSE, PADUVAPURAM, EDAKKUNNU KARA KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTIRCT 683103

¶12

R BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) R BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM

¶13

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2013, ALONG WITH OPRC. 3627/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP (RC).No. 3624 of 2013 (O)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶17

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RCP NO 8/2012 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE OBJECITON FILED BY THE PETITIONER

¶19

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO 373/2013 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALUVA EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTATE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S NO 373/2013 ON THE FILES OF MUNISFF'S COURT, ALUVA EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE I.A NO 1418/2012 IN R.C.P.NO.8/2012 ON THE FILES OF RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA

¶20

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A NO 1418/2012 IN R.C.P.NO.8/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

\True copy//

P.S to Judge

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

¶27

O.P.(RC).Nos.3624 & 3627 of 2013 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶28

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2013

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶31

The petitioner and respondent in both these Original Petitions (Rent

¶32

Control) are the same. These petitions have been filed seeking for a

¶33

direction to the Rent Control Court to first decide the issue of denial of Landlord-Tenant relationship, and denial of title as urged by the petitioner-

¶34

tenant in the inter locutory applications filed before the said court. According to the learned counsel for the landlord, the plea of the tenant is

¶35

without any bona fides. As far as O.P.(RC).No.3624/2013 is concerned,

¶36

the copy of the said inter locutory application is Ext.P5 and in O.P.(RC).

¶37

No.3627/2013 also the copy of the said application is produced as Ext.P5.

¶38

We had called for a report from the Rent Control Court, Aluva

¶39

and going by the report, the matter is posted for evidence on 11/11/2013,

¶40

for disposing of these two inter locutory applications.

¶41

O.P.(RC).Nos.3624 & 3627 of 2013

¶42

-:2:-

¶43

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for a direction that

¶44

the court may take evidence on the inter locutory applications and decide

¶45

the point under the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Kerala Buildings

¶46

(Lease and Rent Control) Act, [for short, the 'Act'].

¶47

Learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the rent control

¶48

petitions itself require an early disposal since they are mainly for fixation of

¶49

fair rent under Section 5 of the Act.

¶50

5. Since it is evident from the report of the learned Munsiff that

¶51

the matter is posted on 11/11/2013 for evidence, we direct the Rent Control

¶52

Court to dispose of the inter locutory applications on its merits by deciding

¶53

the questions raised by the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the Act. The

¶54

rent control petitions will also be disposed of, at any rate, within three

¶55

months thereafter. The Original Petitions (Rent Control) are disposed of

¶56

accordingly.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge)

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(B.Kemal Pasha, Judge)

¶61

M.J.Sebastian v. Preetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Sebastian v. Preetha

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 Examiner

Viswambharan Vs Kaderkutty

Gopalakrishnan Vs Khadeeja Abdul Rahman

Jasmine Rasheed Vs B.U.Afsal

P.v.Abdul Khader Vs the Cochin Malabar Estates

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Auditor