Remanded

Ramesh.K.S v. Mareena Josepheena

Kerala HC10 Jul 2019OP (RC)/111/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Rent Control matter, the tenant failed to deposit arrears after being directed under Section 12(3) of the Act to vacate. The landlord sought re-cal of the stoppage order. The High Court rejected the prayer for re-call but suspended execution proceedings for two weeks to allow the tenant to file an appeal.

What did the court decide?

Execution proceedings in E.P No.23 of 2019 suspended for two weeks; petitioner given one week to file an appeal.

Ramesh.K.S Vs Mareena Josepheena — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

OP (RC).No.111 of 2019

¶8

E.P NO.23/2019 IN RCP 217/2015 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANTS:

¶10

RAMESH.K.S, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.SANKARAN, RESIDING AT PULLEPARAMBIL, POTTAKUZHY CROSS ROAD, PACHALAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682 023.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.PRAMOJ ABRAHAM.

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶13

MAREENA JOSEPHEENA, W/O JOSEPH BABU, AF-8, YERIK GARDENS, SAINIK AHSREM ROAD, KUSUMAGIRI.P.O, KAKKANAD, PIN-682 030.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU.

¶15

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P(RC) No.111 of 2019 2

¶17

A.HARIPRASAD & SHIRCY.V, J J.

¶18

O.P(R.C) No.111 of 2019

¶19

Dated this the 10th day of July, 2019

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent.

¶23

Petitioner approaches this Court seeking the following reliefs :

¶24

“ a. Issue appropriate direction, directing the

¶25

Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam to

¶26

re-call the order dated 31-5-2019, the

¶27

order of deputing of the Amin to effect

¶28

delivery in E.P No.23/2019 in R.C.P

¶29

No.217/2015.

¶30

O.P(RC) No.111 of 2019 3

¶31

b. Issue appropriate direction, directing the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam to keep the proceedings in E.P No.23/2019 in R.C.P No.217/2015 in abeyance until certified copies of order dated 7-4-2017 in I.A No.2176(a)/2017 and the order dated 30-06-2018 are issued to the petitioner.

¶32

c. Cost of the proceedings;

¶33

d. Such other orders and directions as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper to grant. ”

¶34

Petitioner is the respondent in RCP No.127 of 2015 before the

¶35

Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. Pending the proceedings, the

¶36

petitioner/tenant failed to deposit admitted arrears and therefore the

¶37

O.P(RC) No.111 of 2019 4

¶38

landlord/respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ( in short 'the Act'), seeking stoppage of proceedings. In that matter, the Rent Control Court passed an order under Section 12(1) of the Act, directing the petitioner to deposit the entire admitted arrears within four weeks from the date of order. It is a common case that the petitioner did not deposit the amount nor did he file a counter to the application. Eventually, the Rent Control Court passed an order under Section 12(3) of the Act on 30-06-2018 stopping all further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Thereafter, the landlord filed E.P No.23 of 2019 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, for evicting the petitioner. In the execution proceedings, an Ameen was deputed and when he was resisted, police assistance was also ordered. It is the case of the petitioner that as

¶39

directed by this Court on 05-07-2019, the petitioner has paid Rs.65,000/-

¶40

O.P(RC) No.111 of 2019 5

¶41

to the landlord and Rs.10,000/- was deposited before the court below.

¶42

However, that by itself may not be a reason to vacate the order passed by

¶43

the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of the Act. It is trite law that the

¶44

remedy of the petitioner is only to challenge the order under Section 12(3)

¶45

of the Act in an appeal. Admittedly, he has not filed any appeal so far.

¶46

After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and after

¶47

considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the prayer in the

¶48

petition cannot be allowed as requested for. We feel that a reasonable time

¶49

should be granted to the petitioner to file an appeal and till then following

¶50

arrangements shall be made :

¶51

Execution proceedings in E.P No.23 of 2019 in R.C.P No.217 of 2015

¶52

pending before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, shall be withheld for a period of two weeks.

¶53

The petitioner, if so advised, shall file an appeal within a period of

¶54

O.P(RC) No.111 of 2019 6

¶55

one week and if law permits, he may seek appropriate orders from the

¶56

appellate court. It is the submission by the learned counsel for the

¶57

petitioner that a copy application has been filed before the Rent Control

¶58

Court, Ernakulam in R.C.P No.217 of 2015. The Rent Control Court,

¶59

Ernakulam shall issue a copy of the order to the petitioner on usual terms

¶60

within a period of five days from today.

¶61

All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.

A. HARIPRASAD,

JUDGE.

SHIRCY.V, JUDGE

H/o amk

O.P(RC) No.111 of 2019 7

¶67

APPENDIX

¶68

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶69

EXT.P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN RCP NO.217 OF 2015 DATED 27-11-2015 FILED BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 27-07-2016 IN RCP NO.217 OF 2015 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED I.A NO.2176(a)/2017 IN RCP NO.217 OF 2015 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 3-7-2019 E.A NO.240/2019 IN E.P NO.23/2019 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶70

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

Ramesh.K.S v. Mareena Josepheena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh.K.S v. Mareena Josepheena

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

T.Muhammed Ali Vs Krishna Prabha P.P

Mary Raphel Vs Anil Kumar

Dominic Durom Vs Sebastian

Government of Kerala Vs v.Muhammed Nissar

K.K.Kunhi Mohammed Vs State Wakf Board

Rajeevan Vs Joy