The High Court dismissed the revision petition against an eviction order. Finding the tenant absent and ilmanping substantiating evidence, the Court held no reason to interfere. It granted time for possession subject to clearing arrears.
Tenant granted time to vacate subject to remit of arrears and execution of affidavit for surrender of possession.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
RCRev..No. 386 of 2013 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 7/2010 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TIRUR
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 1/2009 of RENT CONTROL COURT, TIRUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
K.SHEEBA, AGED 40 YEARS D/O. SHAIK ALI, KEEZHEPAT, TIRUR AMSOM AND DESOM TIRUR TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) SRI.SAJU.S.A SMT.P.A.SHEEJA SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.K.C.KIRAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:
S/O. MUHAMMEDALI, CHERUVARI HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI.P.O. PIN-676303.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ.
R.C.R. No.386 of 2013 D
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2013
O R D E R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The tenant, who remained ex-parte before the Rent Control Court, is aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Court which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Eviction was sought by the landlord by invoking Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), namely, arrears of rent for bona fide own occupation and subletting.
RCR.386/2013
: 2 :
that the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to adduce evidence. It is also submitted that even on the merits the conclusions arrived at by the authorities are not correct and for proving the sublease, there is no cogent evidence from the part of the landlord.
that the second respondent before the Rent Control Court remained absent without filing any counter statement. The case was listed for trial on 06.01.2010 and the petitioner
RCR.386/2013
: 3 :
herein was set ex-parte as she was absent without sufficient cause.
RCR.386/2013
: 4 :
dependent on him. On the evidence adduced by PW1, the same was accepted by the court. There is unchallenged testimony of PW1 regarding sublease also. Even though a fresh opportunity is sought for, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to remand for fresh trial. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities.
vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlord on the following conditions:-
(i) She remits the entire arrears as on
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 on or
RCR.386/2013
: 5 :
before 31.05.2014.
(ii) She 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.
(c) Execution proceedings, if any, pending before
the executing court shall be kept in abeyance up to 31.05.2014, if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied.
(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.
(e) No costs.
Sd/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)
aks/27/11
// True Copy // PA to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the eviction order passed by the authorities in the absence of the tenant.
Whether the case is a fit case for remand for evidence despite the tenant's ex-parte status.
Whether the landlord proved the grounds for eviction including bona fide need and subletting.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Sheeba
K. Mohammed Basheer
Siraj
T.R. Ramachandran Nair
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
