Partly allowed

Cherukunnon Puthiya Valappil Baby Leena v. Asharikkandy Narayanani @ Sunanda

Kerala HC1 Aug 2017RCRev./336/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a rent control revision against an eviction order. While citing precedent that meticulous pleading is not required if no prejudice is caused, the court upheld the Appellate Authority's finding of bona fide necessity for eviction.

What did the court decide?

Tenant granted eight months' time to vacate the premises conditional upon paying arrears and filing an undertaking to surrender the property peacefully.

Cherukunnon Puthiya Valappil Baby Leena Vs Asharikkandy… — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2017/10TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶6

RCRev..No. 336 of 2015 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA NO.61/2009 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE - IV), THALASSERY, DATED 31.08.2015

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP NO.84/2008 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (ADDL.MUNSIFF), KANNUR DATED 25-02-2009.

¶9

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶10

CHERUKUNNON PUTHIYA VALAPPIL BABY LEENA AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. PREMARAJAN, LEENA NIVAS, MISSION COMPOUND, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, CHOVVA DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE

¶12

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶13

ASHARIKKANDY NARAYANI @ SUNANDA D/O. CHEKKOTTY, AGED 74 YEARS, ASHARIKANDY HOUSE, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, CHOVVA DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR

¶15

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

I.A.NO.3270/2015 IN R.C.R.NO.336/2015

¶17

CLOSED

¶18

SD/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE

¶19

01/08/2017 SD/- P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶20

//TRUE COPY//

¶21

AHZ/

¶22

K. Harilal & P. Somarajan, JJ.

¶23

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

¶24

R.C.R. No.336 of 2015 (B)

¶25

---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2017

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Harilal, J.

¶28

The revision petitioner is the tenant, who is confronting with divergent findings against her under Section 11(3) of the

¶29

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. According to the landlord, the petition schedule building is required for her son to start an electrical shop. The son of the landlord has experience in electrical works, but he has no occupation at all. He has passed wireman course also. The landlord has no other vacant building of her own to accommodate her son. The tenant resisted the bona fide s of the need. According to her, the need projected is a pretext for eviction only. The son of the landlord has been working as a contractor. The need alleged is not a bona fide one, as he is getting sufficient income from the contract business.

¶30

R.C.R. No.336 of 2015 (B)

¶31

:: 2 ::

¶32

After examining both the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Control Court rejected the Rent Control Petition, on a finding that the Rent Control Petition lacks sufficient pleadings with respect to dependency of her son for the petition schedule building. But, in appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the said findings on the reason that meticulous pleading is not required in a Rent Control Petition, in view of the decision of this Court in Safiya v. Haridasan (1998 (1) KLJ 704) . Further, it was found that the dependant himself was examined and thereby he himself was cross examined by the tenant with respect to his dependency for the building. On the aforesaid reasons, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Control Court and allowed the Rent Control Appeal. Thus, the findings of the courts below stands in divergence.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

¶34

and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶35

R.C.R. No.336 of 2015 (B)

¶36

:: 3 ::

¶37

The divergence in the findings of the courts below centres around the pleadings in the Rent Control Petition. The Rent Control Court found that the pleadings are not sufficient as regards the dependency of the son on the mother for the petition schedule building. It is trite law that dependency is not on the person but for the building. As regards the pleadings, it is pertinent to note that the rent control proceedings are summary proceedings only. In the above view, this Court in Safiya v. Haridasan (1998 (1) KLJ 704), held as follows:

¶38

“Meticulous analysis of pleadings should not be adopted, which will lead to failure of justice. It does not mean that proper pleadings are not necessary in proceedings under the Act. If taking the entire circumstances, emerged in this case, if the court feels that no prejudice has been caused to the tenant on account of the pleadings of the petitioner, it is not proper to deny the relief on the ground that there is no pleading.”

¶39

R.C.R. No.336 of 2015 (B)

¶40

:: 4 ::

¶41

We find that there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Authority in view of the above decision. That apart, going by the evidence, on record, it could be seen that the parties have understood the requirement of the landlord, in its correct perspective and that the tenant has resisted the requirement, after understanding the same in its correct perspective. More over, the dependant himself offered for cross examination and the tenant has got an opportunity to discredit the requirement of the petition schedule building through cross examination. Thus, no prejudice was caused to the tenant even if the entire particulars of the dependency was not meticulously pleaded in the petition. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Appellate Authority.

¶42

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks time to vacate the petition schedule building but the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the same and submits that

¶43

R.C.R. No.336 of 2015 (B)

¶44

:: 5 ::

¶45

a reasonable time alone can be granted to vacate the premises. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the Bar, we are inclined to grant eight months' time from today to vacate the petition schedule building on the following conditions:

¶46

(1) the Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he would peacefully surrender the petition schedule building within eight months from today;

¶47

(2) the Revision petitioner shall pay the entire arrears of rent, if any, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall continue to pay the rent without default.

¶48

(3) In the event of failure to comply with any of the conditions, the time granted

¶49

R.C.R. No.336 of 2015 (B)

¶50

:: 6 ::

¶51

to vacate the petition schedule building would stand automatically repealed and the landlord is at liberty to proceed with the Execution proceedings.

¶52

The Rent Control Revision is dismissed accordingly.

¶53

K. Harilal

¶54

Judge

¶55

P. Somarajan Judge

¶56

ahz/

Cherukunnon Puthiya Valappil Baby Leena v. Asharikkandy Narayanani @ Sunanda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cherukunnon Puthiya Valappil Baby Leena v. Asharikkandy Narayanani @ Sunanda

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

Acuthan Vs Union of India

Elizabeth Vaidyan Vs the Regional Manager of South Ksb (M & M)

T. Murukesan Vs R.C. Murukesan

George Daniel Vs C.K Ninan

Ibrahim Vs Zeena Robert

Shahul Hameed Vs a.K.Dinesan