Dismissed

Suseela Bhai.G. v. Thirumala Venkiteswara Swami Devaswom

Kerala HC23 Jan 2013RCRev./27/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the revision petition and upheld the eviction order of the tenants against a temple. The court found the premises were not a hut, denied Kudikidappu rights, and accepted the need for a priest's accommodation. Tenants were granted time to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order upheld; revision dismissed; grant of time till 31.07.2013 to surrender vacant possession against payment of rent arrears.

Suseela Bhai.G. Vs Thirumala Venkiteswara Swami Devaswom — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2013)

¶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.27 of 2013 (D)

¶8

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA.NO.15/2010 OF THE ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM DATED 03-09-2012 IN RCOP.NO.20/2008 OF ADDL.RENT CONTROLLER, KOTTAYAM DATED 27-01-2010)

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ADDL.APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 - NO PARTIES:

¶10

SUSEELA BHAI.G., W/O.SADANANDA VADYAR, DEVASWOM PARAMBU HOUSE THAZHATHANGADY, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

AJAI PREAM D.S., S/O.SADANANDA VADYAR, DEVASWOM PARAMBU HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADY, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

BINDUPRAKASH, D/O.SADANANDA VADYAR, DEVASWOM PARAMBU HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADY, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

SINDU D.S., D/O.SADANANDA VADYAR, DEVASWOM PARAMBU HOUSE THAZHATHANGADY, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K),

¶15

SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY.

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT - PETITIONER:

¶17

THIRUMALA VENKITESWARA SWAMI DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT BALAKRISHNA PAI, THAZHATHANGADI POST, KOTTAYAM - 686 005.

¶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

R.C.R No.27 of 2013

¶21

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2013

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

¶24

The tenants are in revision.

¶25

The respondent/landlord sought eviction of the revision

¶26

petitioners from the tenanted premises under Section 11(7) of the Kerala

¶27

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short, the Act.

¶28

The case of the respondent, which is a pubic religious institution governed by the provisions contained in a scheme prepared in a civil suit is that the respondent owns a temple by name 'Sree Venketeswara Swami Temple' and the tenanted premises belonging to the respondent devaswom was leased out to the revision petitioners in the year 1961. Now, the respondent has decided to establish a 'Santhimadam' for the accommodation of temple priest and, therefore, they require the tenanted premises. Though the registered notice which was sent to the tenant was accepted, the same could not evoke any positive response.

¶29

RCR27/13 -:2:-

¶30

The revision petitioners countered, admitting occupancy of the tenanted premises from 1961, but contended that the tenanted premises

¶31

was only a hut when it was leased out and the same was renovated and converted into a semi permanent structure by the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners claimed Kudikidappu right in the tenanted premises. The requirement of the respondent devaswom was also denied.

¶32

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 RW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 a well as Exts.B1 to B3 ordered eviction under Section 11(7) of the Act. The revision petitioners carried the matter before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, but without success. Thus, the revision petitioners have come up in revision.

¶33

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

¶34

The lease arrangement of the building is proved through the oral testimony of PW1, who is the President of the respondent devawsom and Ext.A1 which is the registered lease deed. RW1, who is the tenant,

¶35

RCR27/13

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

admitted that he is in occupation of the building since 1961 as per Ext.A1 document. That means that the landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent devaswom and the revision petitioners stands established. Though the revision petitioners contended that they are entitled to Kudikidappu right in the tenanted premises, the said contention is terribly watered down in the light of Ext.A1 document which shows that the monthly rent at the time when the premises was leased out is 6/- per month, as it is clear from sub clause (ii) of proviso to Explanation II(a) of Section 2(25) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, that 'a person in occupation of any dwelling house which could have at the time of construction yielded a monthly rent exceeding 5/- should not be deemed to be a Kudikidappukaran.'

¶38

Though the revision petitioners contended that they had made extensive renovation of the tenanted premises, Exts.B2 and B3 would prove otherwise. It is evidenced by those documents that the revision petitioners have made only some extensions to the then existing building. There is no evidence to show that the building was only a hut; the cost of construction of which was less than `300/- at the time of its construction.

¶39

RCR27/13 -:4:-

¶40

Coming to the need, Ext.A4 would go to show that the respondent devaswom had taken a decision to establish a 'Shanthimadam' for accommodation of priests of the temple. Both the courts below could not see any reason to approach the testimony of PW1 without any element of distrust or suspicion. Hence, the courts below found that the respondent Devaswom is entitled to get an order of eviction under Section 11(7) of

¶41

the Act. The nature of evidence tendered and the quality of finding will compel us not to interfere with the finding of the court below.

¶42

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

¶43

When our decision was made known to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, he requested time to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises, as it is a residential building. In fact, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners aspired a fairly long time. After considering all the relevant circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the revision petitioners be granted time till 31.7.2013 to surrender vacant possession of the tenanted premises. Hence, we direct the execution court to keep the delivery in abeyance till 31.7.2013, subject to the following conditions:

¶44

RCR27/13 -:5:-

¶45

(a) The entire arrears of rent shall be paid by the revision petitioners 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;

¶46

(b) The second revision petitioner shall file an affidavit for and on behalf of all the revision petitioners within three weeks from today before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the case may be, undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule building peacefully to the landlord on or before 31.7.2013 and further that they will continue to pay occupational charges at the current rent rate till the date of actual surrender of the building to the landlord.

¶47

We make it clear that the revision petitioners will get the benefit of time granted as above, only if they file the affidavit on time and honour the undertakings contained therein.

¶48

sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶49

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶50

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

¶51

krj

Suseela Bhai.G. v. Thirumala Venkiteswara Swami Devaswom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suseela Bhai.G. v. Thirumala Venkiteswara Swami Devaswom

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

Chakkappan Vs Jim Jose

Ose Thengumpillil Vs Sec.Peruvananthanam Service Co.Op Bank

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