Remanded

Navarangil Thamasikkum Padacherry Asya v. Kuttiyil Azeez

Kerala HC7 Aug 2018RCRev./203/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the lower appellate authority violated Section 12(2) by granting only 20 days for rent deposit instead of the mandatory four weeks. The eviction order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order was set aside and the appeal was remanded to consider the application for depositing arrears afresh.

Navarangil Thamasikkum Padacherry Asya Vs Kuttiyil Azeez — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1940 RCRev..No. 203 of 2016

¶4

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-03-2016 IN RCA 31/2015 of THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VADAKARA

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07-01-2015 IN RCP 24/2014 of RENT CONTROL COURT, NADAPURAM

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:-

¶7

NAVARANGIL THAMASIKKUM PADACHERRY ASYA, D/O.MOIDU HAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, EYYANKODE AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:-

¶10

KUTTIYIL AZEEZ, S/O.SOOPPI HAJI, AGED 48 YEARS, KADAMERI AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIZKODE DISTIRCT, PIN-673 101.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN SRI.M.DEVESH SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH

¶12

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

DST

¶14

K. HARILAL & ANNIE JOHN,JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.C.R.No.203 of 2016(C)

¶15

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7^th day of August, 2018

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

K. Harilal, J.

¶18

The revision petitioner is the appellant in

¶19

R.C.A. No.31 of 2015 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vadakara. The aforesaid appeal was filed, challenging an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 12 of the Act, seeking a direction to the revision petitioner herein to deposit the admitted arrears of rent. The said petition was filed on 22.02.2016 and posted for counter to 09.03.2016. But, the revision

¶20

petitioner herein has not filed any counter-

¶21

R.C.R. No.203 of 2016(C)

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

statement. So the revision petitioner was directed to deposit arrears of rent on or before 30.03.2016 and the case was posted to 30.03.2016. On 30.03.2016, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned judgment under challenge under Section 12(3) of the Act, whereby the proceedings has been stopped and directed the revision petitioner to give the vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the respondent herein. The legality, propriety and correctness of the aforesaid finding, whereby the impugned order has been passed, is challenged in this revision.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶25

The sum and substances of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the order directing the revision

¶26

R.C.R. No.203 of 2016(C)

¶27

-: 3 :-

¶28

petitioner to deposit the admitted arrears of rent

¶29

was passed in violation of the statutory mandate under the proviso to Section 12(2) of the Act. According to the revision petitioner, at least four weeks' time should have been granted to pay arrears of rent; but, here, 20 days time only was granted to deposit the admitted arrears.

¶30

It is not disputed that four weeks' time was not grated because the direction to deposit the admitted arrears of rent was passed on 09.03.2016 and the impugned order was on 30.03.2016. According to the proviso to Section 12(2) of the Act, the time fixed by the court for the deposit of the arrears of rent shall not be less than four weeks from the date of order. But, here, 20 days time only was granted to deposit the admitted arrears. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the statutory mandate under the proviso to Section 12(2) of the

¶31

R.C.R. No.203 of 2016(C)

¶32

-: 4 :-

¶33

Act.

¶34

In the above view, the impugned order

¶35

passed in I.A. No.16 of 2016 and the consequential judgment passed in the said appeal would stand set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider Interlocutory Application No.16 of 2016 afresh and proceed in accordance with the order to be passed afresh, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

This Rent Control Revision is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶39

Sd/- ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE

¶40

DST

¶41

//True copy//

¶42

P.A. To Judge

Navarangil Thamasikkum Padacherry Asya v. Kuttiyil Azeez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navarangil Thamasikkum Padacherry Asya v. Kuttiyil Azeez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs Sulaiman

M.v.Abdul Gafoor Vs Ramla

Jose Vs K.W. Joseph

Tomy Mathew Vs Siby C. Jose

Kuniyil Komalam Vs Kruppamkandy Premarajan

Chetti Parambath Yusaf Vs Keerampally Sumangala Devi