Disposed

Valsamma George v. Joseph P.Mathew

Kerala HC27 Nov 2018OP (RC)/49/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a tenant facing an ex-parte eviction order where the appellate application was delayed. Noting petitioner's laches, the Court ordered the Appellate Authority to dispose of pending interim applications within one month and stayed execution proceedings until disposal, also directing payment of costs for the delay caused.

What did the court decide?

Rent Control Appellate Authority directed to dispose petitions within one month; execution of eviction order stayed until disposal; petitioner directed to pay Rs. 7,000 costs.

Valsamma George Vs Joseph P.Mathew — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶7

OP (RC).No. 49 of 2018

¶8

RCA 14/2017 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM

¶9

EP 19/2018 IN RCP 13/2015 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

VALSAMMA GEORGE AGED 60 YEARS, D/O. VARGHESE, KUTTAMPEEROOR HOUSE,VAZHAPPALLY EAST MURI, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 JOSEPH P.MATHEW S/O. MATHAI, PURACKAL HOUSE, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

2 MARYKUTTY PURACKAL AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. BABY P MATHEW, PURACKAL HOUSE, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.

¶16

3 BENCY BABY PURACKAL AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. BABY P MATHEW, PURACKAL HOUSE, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.

¶17

4 MANOJ BABY PURACKAL AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. BABY P MATHEW, PURACKAL HOUSE, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.

¶18

O.P(RC).49/2018

¶19

¶20

5 JANOSH BABY PURACKAL AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. BABY P MATHEW, PURACKAL HOUSE, VEROOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK.

¶21

R1 TO R5 BY ADV.SRI.SANIL JOSE

¶22

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O.P(RC).49/2018

JUDGMENT

K.Harilal, J.

The petitioner is the tenant who is confronting with an ex-parte order of eviction. He is the appellant in R.C.A.No.14/2017 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kottayam. The ex-parte order was set aside by the Rent Control Court on condition. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition, the application to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed. R.C.A.No.14/2017 was filed by the petitioner against the said order. Along with the appeal the petitioner filed Ext.P2 petition to condone the re-presentation delay and Ext.P3 petition to stay the execution of the ex-parte order of eviction. The grievance

¶28

O.P(RC).49/2018

¶29

¶30

of the petitioner is that in the meantime the respondent proceeded with execution of the ex-parte order of eviction and if the property is delivered before consideration of Exts.P2 and P3, the petitioner will be put to irreparable injury and great loss.

¶31

2. The respondents contended that the petitioner wilfully caused delay in disposing the case by not complying with the condition to set aside the ex-parte order. Even though the petitioner has filed Exts.P2 and P3 before the appellate authority, she has not taken steps to issue notice to the

¶32

respondents on Exts.P2 and P3. The respondents have produced a case status report also to substantiate the aforesaid contention.

¶33

3. Heard learned counsel for the

¶34

O.P(RC).49/2018

¶35

¶36

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶37

4. It is evident from the previous conduct of the petitioner that the petitioner is not diligent in defending the rent control petition as well as the appeal. The negligence and laches from the part of the petitioner has caused much difficulty and hardship to the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner has to pay cost to the respondents for the difficulties and hardship caused to them. So this Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.7,000/- as cost to the counsel appearing for the respondents by the order dated 16.11.2018. Today the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he has received the cost in compliance with the direction of

¶38

O.P(RC).49/2018

¶39

¶40

this Court in the order dated 16.11.2018

¶41

passed against the petitioner.

¶42

5. In the result, the Rent Control

¶43

Appellate Authority, Kottayam is hereby directed to consider and dispose Exts.P2 and P3 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and all further execution proceedings will stand stayed till the disposal of Exts.P2 and P3.

¶44

This O.P.(RC) is ordered accordingly.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

K.HARILAL Judge

¶47

Sd/ANNIE JOHN Judge

¶48

okb

¶49

//True copy// P.A. to Judge

O.P(RC).49/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM IN R.C.A NO.14/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM

¶55

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO CONDONE DELAY IN R.C.A NO. 14/2017 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM

¶56

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN R.C.A NO 14/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM

¶57

EXHIBIT P4

¶58

THE TRUE COPY OF E.P NO. 19/2018 IN R.C.P 13/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANASSERY

¶59

EXHIBIT P5

¶60

THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN E.P NO. 19/2018 IN R.C.P 13/2015 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANACHERRY.

Valsamma George v. Joseph P.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsamma George v. Joseph P.Mathew

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

M.R. Sanjay Vs Chankalath Meenakshi Amma

M.M Francis Vs Shaji V.P

Jose Vs Williams Daniel

Shaji Vs S. Rajendran

Thoppil Naziya, Vs Nahim

Sunny Padamadan Rafael @ Sunny Padamadan, Vs Vijaya Shenoy