Allowed

N.C.Mohammed Iqbal v. a.K.K.Kamal

Kerala HC11 Nov 2013RCRev./100/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court upheld the Appellate Authority's eviction order against a tenant for non-cessation of occupation, despite tenant's hotel business, finding documents presented were subsequent to the dispute period and confirmed the order granting six months to vacate with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order confirmed; petitioner granted six months time to vacate on conditions including filing affidavit and paying arrears of rent.

N.C.Mohammed Iqbal Vs a.K.K.Kamal — 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 MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/20TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶4

RCRev..No. 100 of 2011 ( ) ---------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 54/2006 of APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE DATED 15-11-2010

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 80/2001 of RENT CONTROL COURT.,KOZHIKODE DT.23/12/2005

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S): -----------------------

¶8

N.C. MOHAMMED IQBAL, S/O. N.C. ALI, BUILDING NO.8/294, NEAR GUJARATHI SCHOOL, BEACH ROAD, NAGARAMA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------

¶9

A.K. KAMAL, S/O.K.P. POKKU HAJI, RESIDING AT KODIYERI AMSOM AND DESOM, “HILL TOP” POST PAROL THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. A.K. BASHEER, S/O.-DO3. A.K. SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O. -DO4. A.K. NAJEEB, S/O. -DO5. A.K. RAZIYA, D/O. -DO6. A.K. LAILA, D/O. -DO7. A.K. ASMA, D/O. -DO8. A.K. HASHIM, S/O. -DOR,R8 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ R,R8 BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶10

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

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

¶12

R.C.R.No.100/2011

¶13

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2013

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶16

The tenant is in revision, aggrieved by the direction to vacate the

¶17

building of the landlords. Eviction was sought under Sections 11(2)(b), 11

¶18

(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,

¶19

[for short, the 'Act'].

¶20

We heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri K.Jayakumar and Smt.M.Shajna appearing for the respondents.

¶21

A reading of the order passed by the Appellate Authority will

¶22

show that the matter was once gone into by this Court in R.C.R.No.40/2008. By the said Judgment, the order of eviction passed

¶23

under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act was confirmed but, the finding under Section 11(4)(v) of the Act was set aside and the matter was sent back to

¶24

the Appellate Authority to decide the question as to whether an eviction

¶25

order could be passed against the tenant on the ground of cessation of

¶26

R.C.R.No.100/2011

¶27

-:2:-

¶28

occupation. Specific opportunity was given to the tenant to adduce

¶29

documentary evidence regarding the conduct of STD booth and any other

¶30

business in the petition schedule room. The case of the tenant was that he was doing hotel business in the said building. The Appellate Authority

¶31

considered the matter afresh which is clear from paragraph 8 onwards.

¶32

We find that after the remand, Exts.B29 series to B37 series

¶33

were produced by the tenant. Each one of the documentary evidence were

¶34

considered by the Appellate Authority. It was found by the Appellate Authority that the Rent Control Petition was filed on 08/08/2001 but, the documents relied upon are of the subsequent periods. Therefore, they are not crucial to decide on the issue and to support the contention of the tenant. We are not entering into the discussions on the entire evidence,

¶35

since the materials will show that they are subsequent to the period in

¶36

question. Therefore, we also concur with the view taken by the Appellate

¶37

Authority that the tenant ceased to occupy the premises. The evidence of

¶38

R.C.R.No.100/2011

¶39

-:3:-

¶40

the landlords clearly established the same, as rightly found by the

¶41

Appellate Authority and since no other point arises we confirm the order

¶42

passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner-tenant is granted six

¶43

month's time to vacate the premises on the following conditions:

¶44

a. The petitioner will file an affidavit undertaking to vacate the

¶45

petition schedule premises within six months from today (on or before 31/05/2014) before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the

¶46

case may be .

¶47

b. The affidavit as directed above will be filed within a period of

¶48

one month.

¶49

c. The arrears of rent, if any, will be paid to the landlords within a

¶50

period of one month.

¶51

d. He will continue to pay the same monthly rent for use and

¶52

occupation till the vacant possession is handed over.

¶53

R.C.R.No.100/2011

¶54

-:4:-

¶55

5. Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the Execution

¶56

Court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six months, if the aforesaid

¶57

conditions are satisfied. If any of the conditions are violated, the petitioner

¶58

will not be entitled for the benefit of this order and the Execution Court shall

¶59

effect delivery forthwith.

¶60

The Rent Control Revision is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge)

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(B.Kemal Pasha, Judge)

¶65

¶66

\True copy//

¶67

P.A to Judge

N.C.Mohammed Iqbal v. a.K.K.Kamal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.C.Mohammed Iqbal v. a.K.K.Kamal

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

P.v.Abdul Khader Vs the Cochin Malabar Estates

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Auditor

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Dy. Director for Local Fund Accounts

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Auditor

M.P.Thilakan Vs a.C.Thomas

Kadungon Moideenkutty Vs Panakavil Bharathan