Dismissed

Sayooj Paul, v. Smt.Asha

Kerala HC10 Jun 2019RCRev./105/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition challenging an eviction order. While finding no merit in the challenge to the lower courts' factual findings on bona fide need, the Court granted a three-month stay to vacate the shoproom subject to filing an undertaking affidavit and continuing rent payments.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Tenant granted three months from today to vacate if he files an affidavit undertaking to vacate within that time and continues to pay rent.

Sayooj Paul, Vs Smt.Asha — 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

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

RCRev..No. 105 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-01-2019 IN RCA NO.21/2018 of ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT- V), KOLLAM

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2017 IN RC(OP) NO.60/2014 of PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT), KOLLAM

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

SAYOOJ PAUL,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.PAUL, CHERUVATHOOR VEERANPULLI, AYYANTHOLE P.O., ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN RC(OP):

¶14

SMT.ASHA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O.DR.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, NARAYANAN, NEAR DR.NAIR'S HOSPITAL JUNCTION, RESIDENCY ROAD, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 002, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.8/B-2, SUNNY ESTATE, MAMANGALAM,

¶15

PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM-25.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU

¶17

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.C.Rev.No..105 of 2019

¶19

¶20

A.HARIPRASAD & SHIRCY V., JJ.

¶21

R.C.Rev. No.105 of 2019

¶22

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2019

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Hariprasad, J.

¶25

Tenant's revision challenging an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Kollam under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, "the Act"), which was confirmed in a Rent Control Appeal by the lower appellate court.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶27

Respondent/landlord approached the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of the shoproom from possession of the revision petitioner alleging that she bonafide required the premises for own occupation. The revision petitioner resisted the petition by contending that the claim put forwarded by the landlord is not bonafide and it is only a ruse to evict him from the tenanted premises. Further, it is contended that he is eking out a livelihood by doing business in the premises and therefore, he is entitled to the protection under second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶28

Courts below on appreciating the evidence produced before them, found that the bonafide need set up by the respondent/landlord is genuine. It also found that the revision petitioner failed to establish the two grounds set out in the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act in order to get its protection. These concurrent findings are based on facts placed before the court and also

¶29

R.C.Rev.No..105 of 2019

¶30

¶31

these findings are well reasoned. Therefore we do not find any reason to interfere with the factual findings. There is no illegality or impropriety in the conclusions arrived at by the courts below. Therefore we find no merit in this revision petition. Hence we decide to dismiss the case. However, considering the fact that the revision petitioner is running a business in the premises, we give three months time from today to him to vacate the petition schedule shoproom on fulfilling the following conditions:

¶32

(i) Revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court, Kollam, within two weeks from today, unconditionally undertaking to vacate the petition schedule shoproom without any demur within the stipulated time.

¶33

(ii) He shall continue to pay the rent accrued every month until

¶34

he actually vacates the building.

¶35

In case any of the above conditions is breached by the revision petitioner, the execution court is free to execute the order of eviction irrespective of grant of time by this Court.

¶36

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶37

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶38

SHIRCY V., JUDGE.

¶39

cks

Sayooj Paul, v. Smt.Asha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayooj Paul, v. Smt.Asha

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

Lal Chinnappan Vs the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India

Vimala Moni Vs United Trading Finance

Sudheer Vs Special Tahsildar(La)

Rajeev Vs Harikumar

Satheeshan.N.K. Vs C.K.Vanaja Mohanan

P.E Thomas Vs Abraham Jose Rocky