Raman v. Joffy Philip
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding no substantial question of law arose regarding the validity of the termination notice. However, considering the appellant's business presence, a compromise allowing nine months to vacate was granted.
What did the court decide?
The appellant is granted nine months to vacate the premises upon filing an undertaking to surrender possession and pay damages.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/25TH JYAISHTA, 1939
RSA.No. 518 of 2017
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 6/2015 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT - IV, KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 128/2013 of MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
RAMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, MANJUMALA HOUSE, VILLOONNI POST, ARPOOKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law arises admitting the appeal in a suit for recovery of possession.
Whether the defendant-tenant who is engaged in business can be evicted abruptly without allowing time to recover dues.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
RAMAN
- respondent
JOFFY PHILIP
Coram
B. KEMAL PASHA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court