Allowed

Aliyamma v. Pilakkat Raghavan

Kerala HC27 Nov 2013RCRev./159/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioners (landlords) sought withdrawal of eviction petition with liberty for fresh proceedings. The Court allowed the withdrawal prayer and set aside the orders of the lower authorities, permitting the landlords to initiate fresh comprehensive proceedings on the same subject matter.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition stood dismissed as withdrawn; impugned orders of Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority set aside; liberty to initiate fresh proceedings granted.

Aliyamma Vs Pilakkat Raghavan — 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

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶7

RCRev..No. 159 of 2011 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 65/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VADAKARA DATED 29-10-2010

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 34/2006 of RENT CONTROL COURT, NADAPURAM DATED 17-02-2007

¶10

REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

MADATHIL THAMASIKKUM KATTIL OTHAYOTH ALIYUMMA, D/O.KUNHALI HAJI, AGED 69 YEARS SWASTHAM KUMAMKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM

¶12

VATAKARA TALUK.

¶13

PARAMBATH AYISSU, W/O.KUNHAMMAD KUTTY HAJI, IYYAMKODE AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶14

MAJID,S/O.KUNHAMMAD KUTTY HAJI, -DO- -DO-

¶15

ANWAR,S/O.KUNHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, -DO- -DO-

¶16

MASHIDA,D/O.KUNHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, -DO- -DO-

¶17

MARSEENA,D/O.KUNHAMMED KUTTY HAJI,

¶18

-DO- -DO-

¶19

MASLA,D/O.KUNHAMMAD KUTTY HAJI, -DO- -DO-

¶20

MASHFINATH,D/O.KUNHAMMAD KUTTY HAJI, -DO- -DO-

¶21

BY ADVS.SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶22

SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN

¶23

SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)

¶24

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶25

PILAKKAT RAGHAVAN, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, CARPENTOR, KUMMAMKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673101.

¶26

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL)

¶27

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶29

¶30

B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶31

¶32

R.C.R No.159 of 2011 C

¶33

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2013

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶36

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶37

The revision petitioners herein are landlords of two

¶38

rooms of which the respondent herein is the sole tenant. Eviction was sought on different grounds namely, under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Sections 11(2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act and rejected the prayer under Section 11 (4)(ii). In appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of

¶39

the Rent Control Court and upheld the bona fides of the denial of title of the landlord by the tenant.

¶40

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶41

RCR.159/2011

¶42

: 2 :

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

¶44

the petitioners may be allowed to withdraw from the eviction petition itself namely, RCP.34/2006 with liberty to initiate fresh comprehensive proceedings on the very same subject matter. It

¶45

is prayed that the order of the Appellate Authority may be set aside. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if this Court is allowing the prayer for withdrawal, the order need not be set aside. But, we are of the view that as the petitioners are withdrawing the RCP itself, there is no meaning in allowing the impugned orders to operate. We, therefore, allow the prayer and hence, the RCP will stand dismissed as withdrawn. The orders passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority will stand set aside with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings on the very same subject matter.

¶46

RCR is disposed of as above.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶49

aks/27/11

Aliyamma v. Pilakkat Raghavan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aliyamma v. Pilakkat Raghavan

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

Puthuparamban Hamza Vs Pathummakutty

A.R.C. Parcel Service Private Ltd. Vs a.v.Rajasekharan

Kadathasserril Kudumbayoha Trust Vs Poruvazhy Peruviruthy Malanada Devaswom

The Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director, Lfa, Tdb

K.Sheeba Vs K.Muhammed Basheer