Dismissed

Karthyayani v. Chakkappan

Kerala HC18 Jan 2013RCRev./415/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC revises rent control court's eviction order. Upholding lower courts, it confirms eviction was justified by landlord's bonafide need for a new business. Revision dismissed; tenants granted four months to vacate contingent on paying arrears and use charges. Execution stayed if conditions met.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order upheld; tenants granted four months to vacate contingent on paying arrears and use charges.

Karthyayani Vs Chakkappan — 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

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

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/28TH POUSHA 1934

¶6

RCRev..No. 415 of 2012 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA.26/2006 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 25-07-2012

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP.2/2004 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA DATED 25-11-2005

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:

¶10

1. KARTHYAYANI W/O. LATE KUNDALATH THANKAPPAN M/S. METRO HAIR CUTTING SHOP,SOUTH JUNCTION CHALAKUDY.

¶11

2. DEVI @ RUKMANI D/O. LATE KUNDALATH THANKAPPAN M/S. METRO HAIR CUTTING SHOP,SOUTH JUNCTION CHALAKUDY.

¶12

3. AMBIKA

¶13

D/O. LATE KUNDALATH THANKAPPAN M/S. METRO HAIR CUTTING SHOP,SOUTH JUNCTION CHALAKUDY.

¶14

4. RAMESH S/O. LATE KUNDALATH THANKAPPAN M/S. METRO HAIR CUTTING SHOP,SOUTH JUNCTION CHALAKUDY.

¶15

5. RAJESH

¶16

S/O. LATE KUNDALATH THANKAPPAN M/S. METRO HAIR CUTTING SHOP,SOUTH JUNCTION CHALAKUDY.

¶17

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶18

SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :

¶20

CHAKKAPPAN

¶21

S/O. JOSEPH,MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, EAST CHALAKUDY.P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN - 680 307.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN

¶23

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

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

¶25

R.C.R. No.415 of 2012

¶26

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2013.

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶29

This revision is against the concurrent findings on the

¶30

basis of which an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965 has been passed. The premises were rented out to Thankappan. He was conducting a Barbar shop in the name and style Metro Hair Cutting Shop, and following his death, his legal representatives continued. The courts below have concurrently upheld the bonafide need of the petitioner that he wants to start a tea shop-cum-bakery in the two rooms. Regarding the adjacent room which was occupied by Kunjuvareed, this Court has already dismissed the revision affirming the order of eviction. Having examined the pleadings and materials and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the order of the rent

¶31

RCR 415/12

¶32

-2-

¶33

control court did not warrant interference at the hands of the appellate authority under Section 18 of Act 2 of 1965. The findings of the appellate authority have been rendered after adverting to and considering all relevant facts and factors and the impugned decisions, being in accordance with equity, justice and good conscience, is in conformity with Rule11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979. There is no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence. The findings cannot be treated as not available on record. Therefore, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the decisions of the courts below. Hence, this revision fails.

¶34

In the result,

¶35

(a) This revision is dismissed.

¶36

(b)The tenants are granted four months' time from today to vacate the premises and deliver possession to the landlord on the following conditions:

¶37

RCR 415/12

¶38

-3-

¶39

i. They remit the entire arrears as on today before the executing court within three weeks from today and file an affidavit before the executing court within three weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the premises to the landlord within four months from today.

¶40

ii.They pay charges towards use and occupation of the building at the current rent rate from today till they give vacant possession of the premises to the landlord.

¶41

(c)Execution proceedings, if any, pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four months if the aforesaid conditions are satisfied.

¶42

(d)If there is default in performing any of the conditions imposed in clause (b) above, the benefit given to the tenants as per this order

¶43

RCR 415/12

¶44

-4-

¶45

will stand recalled automatically and the executing court shall effect delivery forthwith.

¶46

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶47

(A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE)

¶48

Karthyayani v. Chakkappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthyayani v. Chakkappan

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

M/S.Poyyeri Traders Vs S.M.Hyrunneesa

M/S.Varma Road Ways, Kochi Vs Kishore Rubber & Chemicals Ltd.

K.S.E.B Vs Kunhammad.C.

Augastine M.J. Vs Karthikeyan

Sivadasan V.V. Vs P.M.Francis

Suseela Bhai.G. Vs Thirumala Venkiteswara Swami Devaswom