Allowed

Chakkappan v. Jim Jose

Kerala HC23 Jan 2013RCRev./4/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition rejecting an eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and granted the tenant five months' time to vacate the premises upon fulfillment of specific conditions including payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; execution of eviction postponed; tenant granted five months' time to vacate subject to payment of arrears and filing of undertaking.

Chakkappan Vs Jim Jose — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013/3RD MAGHA 1934

¶7

RCRev.No.4 of 2013 ( )

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA.NO.27/2008 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP.NO.31/2006 OF RENT CONTROLLER, CHALAKKUDY) .

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶10

CHAKKAPPAN, S/O.KANICHAYIL ANTONY, CHALAKUDY DESOM, POTTA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.), SMT.P.R.REENA.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶13

JIM JOSE, S/O.CHAKKALAKKAL JOSE IPE, KAROOR DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN 680697

¶14

ITTEERA, S/O.KANICHAYI ANTHONY, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN 680697

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHAJ , CAVEATOR

¶16

SRI.SAJJU S, SRI.RETHEESH N.A., SRI.PRAVEEN THOMAS ABRAHAM.

¶17

R2 BY ADV......

¶18

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶21

R.C.R No.4 of 2013

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2013

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

¶25

The tenant, who faced orders of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short, the Act, by both the courts below, is before us in revision.

¶26

The father of the first respondent, who was the landlord of the tenanted premises, leased out a portion of the tenanted premises in 1976 to the revision petitioner and the balance portion was leased out in 1978 to the second respondent, where they are conducting sale in sanitary items. Thereafter, the first respondent became the owner of the tenanted premises in the year 1997 by virtue of a sale deed executed by his father. He sought eviction of the revision petitioner and the second respondent alleging that he need the tenanted premises for starting a centre for event management and consultancy service. He alleges that he has the financial ability to start the same and he has no other rooms in his possession for the alleged need. It was further alleged that the revision petitioner is not depending upon the income from the business conducted in the tenanted premises and other rooms are available in the locality to shift his business.

¶27

RCR4/13

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

The revision petitioner countered admitting tenancy, but contended that the need alleged is only a ruse for eviction. The further contention was that the first respondent has other rooms in his possession and the revision petitioner's sole source of livelihood is the income derived from the tenanted premises and that no rooms are available in the locality to shift his business.

¶30

The Rent Control Court after raising proper points for trial permitted both sides to adduce evidence and thereafter, considering the evidence consisting of the oral testimonies of PW1 and DW1 as well as Exts.A1 to A11, Ext.B1 series and Ext.C1 series, ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The revision petitioner carried the matter before the Rent Control Appellate Authority which on re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the order of eviction. Hence, this revision.

¶31

Arguments have been heard and the impugned judgment as well as the order of the Rent Control Court were perused.

¶32

The case of the revision petitioner is that he is not having any employment. He is holding a masters decree in business administration. His intention is to start an event management and consultancy service at Chalakudy. He thinks it appropriate to have the said business as there is no other similar institution in the locality. His qualification is proved by Ext.A6.

¶33

RCR4/13 -:3:-

¶34

Though the revision petitioner alleges that Ext.A3 document, on the basis of which the first respondent claims title to the property, is a sham document, the courts below were not prepared to accept the same because the deed in favour of the first respondent was in the year 1997 and the petition for eviction was filed in the year 2006. There is no demonstrable reason for interfering with the finding of the court below that the need alleged is bona fide.

¶35

Regarding the first proviso, the revision petitioner could not establish that the first respondent is having any other building in his possession suited to his requirement. Coming to the second proviso, the Appellate Authority found that the sole source of livelihood of the revision petitioner is the income from the business set up in the tenanted premises. The revision petitioner has produced his sales tax returns (Ext.B1 series) to prove his income. But the Appellate Authority has found that tenant had not exhausted his burden to prove the second limb of the proviso also.

¶36

A Commissioner was taken out, who filed a report. In the report, the Commissioner has given an exhaustive list of buildings available in the locality, where the tenant can start his business. On the said premise, the Appellate Authority found that the first respondent is entitled to an order of eviction under Section 11(3).

¶37

RCR4/13

¶38

-:4:-

¶39

The entire evidence tendered and quality of finding entered into do not permit us to interfere with the impugned judgment as it does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

¶40

In the result, the revision fails and accordingly stand dismissed.

¶41

When our decision was made known to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, he requested one years' time to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondents. The said request was opposed tooth and nail by the learned counsel for the respondents. After considering all the relevant circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the revision petitioner be granted five months' time to give vacant possession of the premises. Hence, we direct the execution court to keep the delivery in abeyance till 30.6.2013, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

(a) The entire arrears of rent shall be paid by the revision petitioner to the respondent/landlord within one month from today and the receipt thereof shall be produced before the Rent Control Court or the Execution court as the case may be, without fail;

¶43

(b) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit, within three weeks from today before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be, undertaking to surrender vacant possession

¶44

-:5:-

¶45

RCR4/13

¶46

of the petition schedule building peacefully to the landlords on or before 31.6.2013 and that he will continue to pay occupational

¶47

charges at the current rent rate till the date of actual surrender of the building to the landlords.

¶48

We make it clear that the revision petitioner/tenant will get the benefit of time granted as above, only if he files the affidavit on time and honours

¶49

the undertakings contained therein.

¶50

Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶53

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶54

krj

Chakkappan v. Jim Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakkappan v. Jim Jose

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

Augastine M.J. Vs Karthikeyan

Sivadasan V.V. Vs P.M.Francis

Karthyayani Vs Chakkappan

Suseela Bhai.G. Vs Thirumala Venkiteswara Swami Devaswom

Ose Thengumpillil Vs Sec.Peruvananthanam Service Co.Op Bank

Anto Mamkootam Vs the Secy., Peruvamthanam Service Co.Op.