Dismissed

Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (Trida) v. Thomas Abraham

Kerala HC14 Jun 2017WA/1170/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court of Kerala held that time-barred rent arrears cannot be recovered under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court declared the Act as merely procedural for debt recovery and allowed the judicial proceeding to continue by dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, holding that time-barred rent arrears cannot be recovered under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (Trida) Vs Thomas Abraham — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/24TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WA.No. 1170 of 2017 () IN WP(C).31388/2014

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31388/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 11-02-2016

¶7

APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:

¶8

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TRIDA), JAYAMANSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM-695010, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:

¶11

1. THOMAS ABRAHAM, S/O.LATE P.T.ABRAHAM, 33/112B1, SOUMYA NAGAR, ALINCHUVADU, EDAPPALLY P.O.-682024.

¶12

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682030.

¶13

3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶14

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, M.A.ASIF R BY DR.K.P.PRADEEP

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

“CR”

¶18

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V., J.

¶19

W.A.No.1170 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2017

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

~~~~~~~~

¶23

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶24

1.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

¶25

2.The appellant is the 1^st the respondent in the writ proceedings instituted by the 1^st respondent to the appeal. The 1^st

¶26

respondent was occupying two shop premises of Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (TRIDA). It is not in dispute that he surrendered the premises to the authorities in the year 2004. It is also not in dispute that he was in arrears of rent. In the year 2010, a requisition was filed before the Revenue Recovery Officer constituted under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of arrears of rent which admittedly was for the period prior to 2004. Pursuant to the requisition filed, notices were issued to the writ petitioner only

¶27

W.A.No.1170/2017

¶28

¶29

in the year 2014. It is these proceedings that were challenged before the writ court on the ground that the proceedings for recovery were obviously barred by limitation and could not be continued. The learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Y.R.Kalliyanikutty

¶30

[1999 (2) KLT 146], allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been filed.

¶31

3.We have considered the facts and heard the learned counsel. In our view the appeal merits no consideration. The Apex Court in the case of Y.R.Kalliyanikutty (supra) has clearly held while dealing with the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, that claims which are time barred on the date when a requisition is issued under section 69(2) of the Act are not amounts due under section 71 of the Act and cannot be recovered under the said Act. The Revenue Recovery Act only provides a procedure, which is not substantive law. Thus, time barred debt cannot be recovered through the process of Revenue Recovery Act. This judgment squarely answers the

¶32

W.A.No.1170/2017

¶33

¶34

contentions. We may also refer to another judgment of the Apex Court in New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram [AIR 1976 (SC) 1637] wherein similarly the New Delhi Municipal Corporation was seeking to recover rent due through the process of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The Apex Court has clearly held that resort to those acts cannot be permitted where the recovery of debt had become barred by limitation. Thus seen, there is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

Sd/NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH,

¶36

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V., JUDGE

¶38

ps/15/6/17

¶39

//True copy//

¶40

PA to Judge

Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (Trida) v. Thomas Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (Trida) v. Thomas Abraham

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

Baby N.V. Vs Sri.Ajith Bhagavath Rao Patel

Rajipth Balakrishnan K.K Vs State of Kerala

Samira Beach Castle Resort (Private) Limited Vs Sivakmar

Shaiju.T.P Vs Kerala Feeds Limited

Suo Motu Vs the Union of India

Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Vs S Krishnakumar