Dismissed

Satheeshan.N.K. v. C.K.Vanaja Mohanan

Kerala HC11 Jun 2019RCRev./124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a rent control revision challenging an eviction order. While upholding the eviction due to non-payment of arrears, the Court granted six months to vacate the premises used for an institute, subject to specific conditions including clearing arrears and filing an affidavit.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order confirmed. Six months respite granted from execution conditioned on filing affidavit, clearing arrears, and continuing deposits.

Satheeshan.N.K. Vs C.K.Vanaja Mohanan — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

RCRev..No. 124 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 25/2017 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY DATED 28-11-2018

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 260/2014 of ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR DATED 30-11-2016

¶10

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SATHEESHAN.N.K. AGED 50 YEARS S/O N K ACHARI,ANUGRAHA APARTMENTS, CHETTIPEEDIKA,PUZHATHIAMSOM DESOM, PO PALLIKKUNNU,KANNUR-670004.

¶12

2 SALINSATHEESHAN, AGED 41 YEARS D/O MOHANAN,ANGRAHA APARTMENTS, CHETTIPEEDIKA,PUTHAZHIAMSOM DESOM,PO PALLIKKUNNU,KANNUR-670004.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.K.ASHIS SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶15

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER :

¶16

C.K.VANAJA MOHANAN W/O LATE K P MOHANAN,HOUSEWIFE, VANAMALA,PALLIKKUNNU.P.O,KANNUR-670004,THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K RAJAN,S/O KANARAN, AGED 75 YEARS,OFFICE ASSISTANT,K V HOUSE,ATHIRAKAM,PO MUNDAYAD,KANNUR-670694.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR

¶18

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RCR 124/2019

¶20

¶21

A.HARIPRASAD & T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.

¶22

R.C.R.No.124 of 2019

¶23

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2019

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶26

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

¶27

The revision petitioners are tenants under the respondent in respect of a building covered by the provisions of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (for short “the Act”). The respondent preferred an eviction petition urging grounds under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) of the Act. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioners failed to deposit admitted arrears during pendency of the proceedings. Although an application under Section 12 (3) of the Act was filed before the trial court, the revision petitioners deposited the amount, so that there was no order thereon. Later, the revision petitioners were ordered to be evicted under Sections 11 (2) (b) and 11(3) of the Act. They challenged the eviction order in an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is the case of the respondent that there also they omitted to deposit admitted arrears

¶28

during pendency of the appeal. Hence, the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Act. In that matter the impugned

¶29

RCR 124/2019

¶30

¶31

order is passed. We have carefully gone through the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on the application filed under Section 12(3) of the Act. We find no reason to interfere with the order since it does not have any illegality or impropriety, the order passed has to be confirmed. Hence the revision has to fail. However, considering the fact that the revision petitioners were running an institute in the building, we grant them six months time to vacate the premises on the following conditions:

¶32

(i)The revision petitioners shall file an affidavit within two weeks before the execution court unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises within six months.

¶33

(ii)They shall clear off all arrears of rent within one month.

¶34

(iii)They shall continue to deposit the admitted arrears till the time they vacate the building.

¶35

If any of the conditions is breached, the respondent/landlord is

¶36

free to execute the order in accordance with law without regard to the time stipulation.

¶37

A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶38

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE

¶39

al/-

Satheeshan.N.K. v. C.K.Vanaja Mohanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheeshan.N.K. v. C.K.Vanaja Mohanan

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

Sayooj Paul, Vs Smt.Asha

Rajeev Vs Harikumar

Lal Chinnappan Vs the Authorized Officer, State Bank of India

P.E Thomas Vs Abraham Jose Rocky

V.N. Sathikumari Vs Suresh Kumar

Stanley P.T Vs K.Padmavathy