Tenants filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order by the Executing Court that refused them further time to vacate premises based on a new construction. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality or perversity in the lower court's decision.
The Original Petition is dismissed with no merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
WEDNESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1940
OP (RC).No. 149 of 2018
E.A.NO.98/2018 IN E.P.NO.72/2018 AND E.A.NO.101/2018 IN E.P.NO.73/2018 of MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 MUTTON THIDIL ABDULLA, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJI, RAINBOW ELECTRICALS, NEAR NEW BUS STAND, PAYYANNUR.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670307
2 ANJILLATH KELOTH JAFFER, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, RAINBOW ELECTRICALS, NEAR NEW BUS STAND, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670307.
BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE SRI.G.GIREESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHAREEFA S.V., AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.NARIKKODAN ABDUL KHADER(LATE), SAREENA MANZIL, MADAYI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.MADAYI, KANNUR-670 358.
2 SAINUL ABIDIN S.V., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. NARIKKODAN ABDUL KHADER(LATE), SAREENA MANZIL, MADAYI AMSOM,DESOM, P.O.MADAYI, KANNUR-670358.
3 SAREENA S.V., AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. NARIKKODAN ABDUL KHADER(LATE),SAREENA MANZIL, MADAYI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.MADAYI, KANNUR-670358.
OP (RC).No. 149 of 2018 : 2 :
4 SAVAD S.V., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. NARIKKODAN ABDUL KHADER(LATE),SAREENA MANZIL, MADAYI AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.MADAYI, KANNUR-670358.
5 MUHAMMED FAROOK S.V., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. NARIKKODAN ABDUL KHADER(LATE),SAREENA MANZIL, MADAYI AMSOM,DESOM, P.O.MADAYI, KANNUR-670358.
BY ADVS. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN (SR.) SRI.JOSE JONES JOSEPH SRI.P.K.SEBASTIAN
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (RC).No. 149 of 2018 : 3 :
JUDGMENT
C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.
Tenants in R.C.P.Nos.35/2010 and 50/2013 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Payyannur are the petitioners herein, in this original petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are the legal heirs of the original landlord, who died subsequent to the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P6 Common Order passed by the Executing Court in two distinct interim applications filed by the tenants in each of the cases. The applications were filed seeking 6 months time for effecting delivery of possession of the scheduled rooms(tenanted premises).
2. It is evident that the challenge against the order of eviction passed in R.C.P.No.35/2010
OP (RC).No. 149 of 2018 : 4 :
was agitated by the petitioners upto this Court, which ultimately ended up in Ext.P1 judgment passed in R.C.R.No.369/2016, dated 16.6.2017. While dismissing the revision petition, this Court granted 8 months time to vacate the premises, subject to conditions incorporated therein. Subsequently, when the execution proceedings were pending, the parties have arrived at a settlement, terms of which were reduced into a 'Memorandum of Agreement' executed as per Ext.P2. Evidently, the time for eviction granted by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, which expired on 16.2.2018, was further extended till 16.8.2018, based on the mutual consent. The petitioners again moved the Executing Court in E.A.No.98/2018 in E.P.No.72/2018 and in E.A.No.101/2018 in E.P.No.73/2018, seeking further time for vacating the premises on the basis that a new building is being constructed by the tenants which is nearing completion. The requests were
OP (RC).No. 149 of 2018 : 5 :
declined by the Executing Court by observing that, the petitioners themselves have agreed to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises on or before 16.8.2018. It was also noticed that the R.C.Ps were initiated in the year 2010 and 2013 and the landlord got the order of eviction after long adjudication of the matter, which was confirmed by this Court in a Revision Petition. Therefore, the court found that the petitions filed seeking further extension cannot be allowed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the court below ought to have considered the fact that the extension is sought for only on the basis that a building being constructed by the petitioners are nearing completion. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the respondents had stiffly opposed stating that, despite the finality attained with respect to the
OP (RC).No. 149 of 2018 : 6 :
orders of eviction through the order passed by
this Court, the landlord had shown leniency in the matter in permitting the petitioners to continue for a further period of 6 months, through the settlement arrived. Therefore it is contended that, there is no bona fides in seeking further time. Moreover it is contended that, huge amounts of arrears of rent is pending payment, which the counsel for the petitioners are disputing. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that, the petitioners are already in occupation of a very huge building which is having sufficient space to accommodate the
business which is now being conducted in the tenanted premises, which also the learned counsel for the petitioners is disputing.
4. Considering the rival contentions and the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, we do not think that any interference is
OP (RC).No. 149 of 2018 : 7 :
warranted as far as Ext.P6 Order is concerned, that too by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is purely visitorial in nature. We do not think that the court below had committed any illegality, error, irregularity or perversity in rejecting the applications seeking further extension of time.
In the result, the Original Petition deserves
no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR
JUDGE
Bb
OP (RC).No. 149 of 2018 : 8 :
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.6.2017 IN R.C.R.NO.369 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2017 AND THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT DATED 26.9.2017 IN R.C.P NO.50 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROLLER (MUNSIFF), PAYYANNUR. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | PHOTOGRAPH OF PARTLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING OF THE PETITIONERS. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION IN E.P.NO.72 OF 2018 IN R.C.P.NO.35 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION IN E.P.NO.73 OF 2018 IN R.C.P.NO.50 OF 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,PAYYANNUR. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 IN E.A.NO.98 OF 2018 IN E.P.NO.72 OF 2018 AND E.A.NO.101 OF 2018 IN E.P.NO.73 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PAYYANNUR. |
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
P.A. To Judge
Bb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Executing Court's rejection of petitions seeking further time to vacate on writ of supervisory jurisdiction.
Whether the court below committed illegality or perversity in declining the application for extension.
MUTTON THIDIL ABDULLA AND ANOTHER
SHAREEFA S.V. AND OTHERS
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
T.V.ANILKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
