Quashed

M.C.Alexander v. Achamma Joseph

Kerala HC29 Jul 2015RSA/523/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that after the re-introduction of Section 5(1) of the Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, jurisdiction for fixing fair rent lies with the Rent Control Court. The impugned order fixing fair rent in Civil Court was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and decree of the lower court are set aside and parties are given liberty to approach the Rent Control Court for appropriate reliefs.

M.C.Alexander Vs Achamma Joseph — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2015/7TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

RSA.No. 523 of 2004 (D)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 112/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 22.09.2003

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 673/1997 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 30.09.1999

¶8

APPELLANT-RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT:

¶9

M.C.ALEXANDER, S/O. V.A.CHACKO MAMPAZHASSERIL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.

¶11

RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS-PLAINTIFF:

¶12

ACHAMMA JOSEPH, W/O. LATE JOSEPH, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

P.J.ISSAC, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT, A2.244 JANAKAPURI, NEW DELHI-58.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.J.JOSEPH

¶15

SRI.JOSEKUTTY MATHEW

¶16

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶18

Regular Second Appeal No.523 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2015.

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

A very narrow question arises for consideration in this second appeal. At the time when Section 5 of Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act was struck down as unconstitutional, the landlords used to approach court for fixation of fair rent.

¶21

The same thing happened in the case on hand also. The trial court dismissed the suit while the lower appellate court interfered with the matter and fixed fair rent. While the matter was pending before this Court, Section 5(1) of the Act was re-introduced and as per the decision in Edger Ferus vs. Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1) KLT 767), parties will have to approach the Rent Control Court for necessary reliefs. In paragraph 17 of the above decision, it was held as follows:

¶22

“17. Under such circumstance both the C.R.Ps would stand dismissed. Review Petition is disposed of restoring S.5(1) to the Rent Control Act and landlord and tenant can approach the Rent Control

¶23

R.S.A No.523/2004

¶24

¶25

Court under S.5(1) of Act 2 of 1965 for fixation of fair rent, and the jurisdiction of Civil Court would stand ousted”.

¶26

In the light of the above decision, the impugned order cannot survive. The parties will have to approach the Rent Control Court. The judgment and decree of the lower court is set aside and the parties are given liberty to approach the Rent Control Court for appropriate reliefs.

¶27

This Regular Second Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶30

smp

¶31

// True Copy //

¶32

P.A. to Judge.

M.C.Alexander v. Achamma Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Alexander v. Achamma Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Saradha Sugathan Vs P.K. Mani

Petronet Cck Limited Vs Western India Kinfra Limited

Ramachandran Vs Radha Amma

Kerala State Electricity Board, Vs M.Vasukuttan

Thurutheemmal Balan Vs K.P.Kunhikannan

K.E.Mathai Vs Sunny Joseph and Another