Dismissed

Gtl Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Sebastian

Kerala HC3 Nov 2017RSA/720/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Regular Second Appeal challenging a district court order dismissing an appeal against a suit for vacant possession was dismissed. The judge held the appeal was devoid of merits and intended only to protract the matter, noting unlawful occupation and lack of payment despite the decree.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal is dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications in this appeal are closed.

Gtl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Cherian Sebastian — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/12TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

RSA.No. 720 of 2017 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2017 IN AS.122/2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-V, ERNAKULAM

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31-07-2014 IN OS 46/2012 of SUB COURT, KOCHI

¶8

APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS / DEFENDANTS:

¶9

GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT ELECTRONIC SADAN, NO.1, E.T.C. INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIDC, MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI, PIN-4007010701

¶10

G.T.L. INFRASTUCTURE LTD; CIRCLE OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 40/9643, PRABHU TOWER,. 1ST FLOOR, OPP. CHENNAI SILKS, M.G.ROAD, NORTH END, ERAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN-682035, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BABU B.NAIR, S/O LATE BHASKARAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHASKARAMANGALAM, NIKARTH CHIRAYIL, THURAVOOR SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688532.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶13

CHERIAN SEBASTIAN

¶14

AGED 58 YEARS, S/O SEBASTIAN, MANNUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNS APARTMENT, AMULYA STREET, KOCHI.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) (CAVEATOR) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY(CAVEATOR)

¶16

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶18

¶19

R.S.A. No.720 of 2017 B

¶20

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2017

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶23

The suit is one for mandatory injunction for the

¶24

surrender of the vacant possession of the plaint schedule building, for realisation of arrears of licence fee, and for damages for unlawful occupation.

¶25

The plaintiff is the landlord of a building. A licence was granted by the landlord to the appellants herein for the erection of a mobile tower. The licence fee was also fixed. According to the plaintiff, no licence fee was paid thereafter, and when vacant possession was sought for, the defendant was not ready and willing to surrender vacant possession also. The trial court decreed the suit in terms of the plaint,

¶26

RSA.720/2017

¶27

: 2 :

¶28

thereby directing the defendants to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule building to the plaintiff within two months from the date of decree and ordered to pay an amount of ₹1,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of suit till date of realisation as arrears of licence fee, and also ordered them to pay damages at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month from 13.03.2012 till the surrender of vacant possession of the building with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Even after the decree, the building was not surrendered and no amount was paid.

¶29

Instead of complying with the decree, the defendants preferred AS No.122/2015 before the District Court, Ernakulam belatedly, with IA No.4390/2015 for getting the delay of 182 days occurred in filing the appeal, condoned. The lower appellate court considered the matter in extenso and found that no convincing explanation had been offered by the defendant for condoning the delay. The

¶30

RSA.720/2017

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

only explanation offered was that they could not file the appeal due to an inadvertent omission on the part of their former counsel and also on account of some official delay in the matter. The lower appellate court dismissed the IA and consequently, dismissed the appeal also.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the question of admission. Learned counsel for the respondent is also heard.

¶34

It has clearly come out that no explanation has been offered for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate court. Still, no amount has been paid. Without paying any amount, the appellants are unlawfully in occupation of the plaint schedule building. They have not so far cared to surrender vacant possession of the building. When the appellants were deliberately sleeping over their right to file an appeal, and for no reason they are not surrendering the vacant possession of the building, this Court is of the view that this RSA is only for the

¶35

RSA.720/2017

¶36

: 4 :

¶37

purpose of protracting the matter further, that too, unnecessarily. Any substantial question of law does not arise from the second appeal. This second appeal is devoid of merits and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.

¶38

In the result, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. All pending interlocutory applications in this RSA are closed.

¶39

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶40

aks/03/11

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

PS to Judge

Gtl Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Sebastian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gtl Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Sebastian

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

Mohanan Vs Thomachan Kadavan

Krishnankutty Vs Sainabi

Mani Vs Kochammini

G.Santhamma Vs District Collector

V.P.Viswanathan Vs Jayan Parameshwaran & 5 Others

William Babu Vs Helma Roy Alias Emily Carmel