Dismissed

State v. Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Oct 2016AS/407/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the appeal by the public defendant-tenant challenging the landlord partner's decree for arrears of rent. Upholding the lower court's estimation, the court found that the parties effectively agreed on ₹2,500/month which was not excessive, and refused to interfere with the nominal interest awarded.

What did the court decide?

The Appeal Suit was dismissed with no costs.

State Vs Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

¶7

AS.No. 407 of 2001 (D)

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 555/1995 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM DATED 29.11.2000

¶9

APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS:

¶10

KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, KADUTHURUTHY.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE

¶14

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶15

THE KADUTHURUTHY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. No.K-399, KADUTHURUTHY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY CYRIAC MATHEW S/O P.K.MATHEW, KADUTHURUTHY.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶17

ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶18

THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶20

--------------------------------------------------

¶21

A.S.No.407 2001

¶22

-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Chitambaresh, J.

¶25

The defendant/tenant admittedly surrendered vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff/landlord during the pendency of the suit. What survives is the payment of arrears of rent for the period of occupation from 23.11.1992 to 23.5.1995. Ext.A4 letter shows that the defendant requested the plaintiff to spare the space of the bank building to accommodate their office.

¶26

It is the case of the plaintiff that the rate of rent agreed upon was 2,500/- per month. But the defendant contends that the₹ rate of rent was subject to the approval by the Government. The 2^nd defendant by Ext.A5 letter sought the issue of a rent certificate at the rate of 2,500/- per month to effect payment.₹

¶27

That there has been a tentative consensus among the parties about the rate of rent payable is evident from Ext.A6 reply notice. The same, inter alia, reads as follows:

¶28

“It is true that the 3^rd defendant in the notice is occupied by the bank building for the accommodation of the office

¶29

A.S.No.407/01

¶30

-2-

¶31

of the Assistant Executive Engineer at Kaduthuruthy on a monthly rent of 2,500/-.”₹

¶32

The evidence is clear, therefore, that the parties

¶33

proceeded as if the rate of rent is 2,500/- per month for the₹ premises. Probably, the defendants would have thought that there would not be any hitch for obtaining sanction to pay rent agreed upon. But then Ext.B3 rent certificate issued pending suit was only at the rate of 1,990/- per month for the premises.₹

¶34

The preponderance of probability is to the effect that the parties agreed upon a rental of 2,500/- per month for the₹ premises in question. The fact that the defendants did not secure ex post facto sanction for the same cannot be detrimental to the

¶35

plaintiff. The fact remains that the defendants occupied the premises for the period in question and subsequently, vacated the same on 23.5.1995.

¶36

We are not inclined to interfere with the decree granted for the arrears of rent. The rent has been estimated at ₹2,500/- per month for the premises which cannot be said to be excessive. Only a nominal rate of interest has been awarded for

¶37

A.S.No.407/01

¶38

-3-

¶39

the future period, which also warrants no interference in this appeal.

¶40

The Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶43

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

dsn

¶45

True copy

¶46

P.S. to Judge

State v. Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Achuthan Vs Ammu

P.Geetha Devi Vs Kottarath Suresh Kumar & Another

Gunavardhanan Vs Sainaba Abdul Rahman

C.R.Lopez Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

State of Kerala Vs D.Bose

K.J.Rosamma Vs Kannamkara Mathew