Dismissed

Angamaly Co-Operative Consumer'S Stores Ltd. NO.240 v. John, S/O.Joseph

Kerala HC5 Dec 2013RCRev./401/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the rent control revision and upheld eviction orders in favor of the landlord. The landlord proved bona fide need, and the co-operative tenant was not entitled to protection against eviction. Vacating time was granted subject to conditions regarding affidavit and arrears payment.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; time granted until 31/10/2014 to vacate subject to filing affidavit and payment of rent arrears.

Angamaly Co-Operative Consumer'S Stores Ltd. NO.240 Vs… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶7

RCRev..No. 401 of 2013 ()

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 13/2011 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 17-10-2013

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 10/2005 of RENT CONTROL COURT,ALUVA DATED 25-06-2011

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

ANGAMALY CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER'S STORES LTD NO.240 (NOW RE-NAMED AS ANGAMALY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURIST SOCIETY LTD. NO.E-240) ANGAMALY PO PIN-683 572 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

¶15

JOHN, S/O.JOSEPH THACHIL HOUSE, AISWARYA, C.N.NO.210 CONVENT ROAD ANGAMALY PO, PIN-683 572

¶16

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B.KEMAL PASHA, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.C.R.No.401/2013

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2013

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶22

The petitioner, a Co-operative Store, is aggrieved by the order of

¶23

eviction granted in favour of the respondent-landlord. Both the authorities

¶24

have concurrently found in favour of the landlord. It is the case of the

¶25

landlord that he has retired from service and he wants to have reoccupation of the premises for starting a S.T.D Booth-cum-Photostat shop.

¶26

The tenant even though raised various contentions, those have been

¶27

overruled by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.

¶28

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted

¶29

that there is no real bona fide need.

¶30

The Appellate Authority has considered the matter from

¶31

paragraph 10 onwards. It appears that one of the contentions raised by

¶32

the tenant was that in an earlier proceedings, the very same plea was

¶33

R.C.R.No.401/2013

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

raised. But, the Appellate Authority has found that the said proceedings,

¶36

which is in respect of another room, is not material since the landlord could

¶37

not occupy that room as by the time eviction was ordered it became in a dilapidated condition. The Municipality granted permit also. But the

¶38

repairs could not be made due to obstruction. Ext.C1 report showed that

¶39

the room is in a damaged condition. The room was not vacant at the time of filing the present rent control petition and hence the first proviso to

¶40

Section 11(3) of the Act will not be applicable. It is in these circumstances,

¶41

the real bona fide need has been proved by the landlord. Since the entire

¶42

evidence has been assessed properly, we find no reason to interfere.

¶43

Being a Co-operative Store, the tenant is not entitled for the benefit of the

¶44

second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶45

4. Apart from the same, the challenge made by the petitioner in

¶46

respect of another building by a separate eviction order has been repelled

¶47

by this Court in R.C.R.No.399/2013 wherein time has been granted upto

¶48

R.C.R.No.401/2013

¶49

-:3:-

¶50

31/10/2014 to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The Store herein is

¶51

also part of the business activities of the very same Society. Therefore, we

¶52

dismiss the rent control revision. We grant time upto 31/10/2014 to the

¶53

petitioner to vacate the premises on the following conditions:

¶54

(a) The Secretary of the Society will file an affidavit unconditionally

¶55

undertaking to vacate the petition schedule premises on or before

¶56

31/10/2014 before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court as the

¶57

case may be .

¶58

(b) The affidavit as directed above will be filed within a period of

one month.

period of one month.

(e) They will continue to pay the same monthly rent for use and

¶63

occupation till the vacant possession is handed over.

¶64

R.C.R.No.401/2013

¶65

-:4:-

¶66

It is made clear that if any of the above conditions are violated, the

¶67

petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge)

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(B.Kemal Pasha, Judge)

¶72

¶73

\True copy//

¶74

P.S to Judge

Angamaly Co-Operative Consumer'S Stores Ltd. NO.240 v. John, S/O.Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angamaly Co-Operative Consumer'S Stores Ltd. NO.240 v. John, S/O.Joseph

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

Sri.P.K.Narayanan Namboodiri Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Director

Vareed Vs Elia

Appu @ Viswambharan Vs Abhishek

Sri.K.R.Sreekumar, Thrissur Vs Cochin Devaswom Board