Dismissed

Koya, S/O.Aboobaker v. Thachoth Ayamma, W/O.Mohamed

Kerala HC5 Oct 2013RCRev./355/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenant filed a Rent Control Revision challenging eviction orders under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(v). The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the findings that the landlord had a bona fide need and the tenant abandoned the premises. The court granted an eight-month extension to vacate upon payment of arrears.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; tenant granted eight months to vacate upon remitting arrears and filing undertaking.

Koya, S/O.Aboobaker Vs Thachoth Ayamma, W/O.Mohamed — 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

SATURDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/13TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

RCRev..No. 355 of 2013

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCA 15/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TIRUR DATED 28-02-2013

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 26/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR DATED 27-07-2009

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶9

KOYA, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. ABOOBAKER, ALUKKAL HOUSE, THEKKENKUTTOOR PULLUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY

¶11

SRI.M.I.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.MOIDEEN KUTTY SRI.A.MOHAMED

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶13

THACHOTH AYAMMA, AGED 71 YEARS W/O. MOHAMED, VERASSERY HOUSE, NADUVILANGADI POOKKAYIL PO, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

FATHIMA, AGED 52 YEARS D/O. MOHAMED, VERASSERY HOUSE, NADUVILANGADI POOKKAYIL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

SAIDALAVI, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. MOHAMED, VERASSERY HOUSE, NADUVILANGADI POOKKAYIL PO, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

MUSTHAFA, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. MOHAMED, VERASSERY HOUSE, NADUVILANGADI POOKKAYIL PO, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BASHEER V., AGED 39 YEARS S/O. MOHAMED, VERASSERY HOUSE, NADUVILANGADI POOKKAYIL PO, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

BY ADV.SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (COVEATOR)

¶19

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶21

B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶22

¶23

R.C.R. No.355 of 2013

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of October, 2013

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶27

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶28

The tenant of a building, who is aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Control Court as well as the appellate authority, is before us in this Rent Control Revision.

¶29

Three grounds were shown in the revision

¶30

petition namely, under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The findings on the ground for eviction under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(v) were against the petitioner.

¶31

It is a case where the respondents sought

¶32

eviction under Section 11(3) for the purpose of the 4^th respondent herein. In the objection filed by the petitioner, it

¶33

RCR.355/2013

¶34

: 2 :

¶35

was pointed out that the 4^th respondent is employed in Gulf countries. The 4^th respondent was examined as PW1 and his passport was also produced. The passport shows that his Visa was cancelled in 2007. It is also in evidence that he used to drive an autorickshaw. In these circumstances, the Rent Control Court found that the plea raised under Section 11(3) is bona fide. It was found that there are no oblique motives for seeking eviction.

¶36

As far as the plea under Section 11(4)(v) is concerned, evidence is there in the form of a report of the Commissioner in which it was stated that, on the date of inspection it was found that the premises was remaining closed and the electricity meter was found dismantled. Other aspects like locks of all the three shutters seen rusted, heap of waste remaining in front of the room and that grass and bushes seen grown in front of the building, have also been reported. Even though the tenant contended that he has been doing business there, he could

¶37

RCR.355/2013

¶38

: 3 :

¶39

not prove the same by producing documents in support of the contention that he is actively involved in the business. Therefore, the finding on that aspect by the Rent Control Court is well justified. Before the appellate authority, these points were argued in detail by the learned counsel for the tenant. After accepting the evidence of PW1, it was found that the ground under Section 11(3) is proved. The court has considered the question whether the tenant is entitled for the benefit of 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. There is also a finding against him. Matters being so, we are of the view that in the light of the concurrent orders of both the courts, which do not appear to be perverse, we will

¶40

not be justified in interfering with the same in revision petition.

¶41

As far as the ground under Section 11(4)(v) is concerned, we have already found that the Rent Control Court is justified in ordering eviction on the basis of cogent convincing evidences.

RCR.355/2013

: 4 :

6. In the result,

(a) This revision is dismissed.

¶46

(b) The tenant is granted eight months' time from

¶47

today, namely, up to 31.05.2014, to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlord on the following conditions:-

¶48

(i) He remits the entire arrears as on

¶49

today before the executing court within one month from today and files an affidavit before the executing court within one month from today, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within

¶50

eight months from today i.e., on or before 31.05.2014.

¶51

(ii) He pays charges towards use and occupation of the building at the current rent rate from today till he gives vacant possession of the premises to the landlord.

RCR.355/2013

: 5 :

the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of eight months if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied.

¶56

(d) If there is default in performing any of the conditions imposed in clause (b) above, the benefit given to the tenant as per this order will stand recalled automatically and the executing court shall effect delivery forthwith.

¶57

(e) No costs.

¶58

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

¶59

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶60

aks/05/10

¶61

// True Copy //

¶62

PA to Judge

Koya, S/O.Aboobaker v. Thachoth Ayamma, W/O.Mohamed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koya, S/O.Aboobaker v. Thachoth Ayamma, W/O.Mohamed

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

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

Travancore Devasom Board Vs the Deputy Director Lfa Tdb Tvm

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Director, Local Fund Audit

Rajappan Asari.G. Vs State of Kerala

Sri.R.S.Anoop Chandran Vs Tdb, Rep.by Its Secretary

Sri.T.K.Ramachandran Vs Cochin Devaswom Board