Disposed

M. Basheer v. Keerachi Moyiloth Haseena

Kerala HC2 Dec 2019RCRev./210/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala granted the revision petitioner an additional three months to vacate the tenanted premises, subject to filing an affidavit of undertaking, depositing arrears, and complying with conditions. Failure to comply allows the landlord to proceed with eviction.

What did the court decide?

Extension of three months granted to vacate premises with conditions of undertaking and deposit of arrears.

M. Basheer Vs Keerachi Moyiloth Haseena — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

RCRev..No.210 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 191/2016 DATED 20-11-2017 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE)VADAKARA

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 34/2015 DATED 29-06-2016 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT(MUNSIFF) VADAKARA

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶11

M. BASHEER, S/O.MAYANKUTTY, AGED 46 YEARS MANNICHEENTAVIDA HOUSE, VATAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.C.KHALID SMT.K.REEHA KHADER

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

KEERACHI MOYILOTH HASEENA

¶15

D/O. MOIDU HAJI, AGED 28 YEARS THIRUVALLUR VILLAGE, VATAKARA 673 101.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. K.R. AVINASH R1 BY ADV. U.P.BALAKRISHNAN

¶17

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RCR No. 210 of 2018

ORDER

K.HARILAL, J.

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

¶23

Read the order dated 22.6.2018. Going by the said order, we find that this court has already considered the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of the courts below and arrived at a finding that this revision petition is not admissible under Sec.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act; but granted six months' time to vacate the tenanted premises on the request of the revision petitioner herein. Now the aforesaid six months' time is over and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that he

¶24

¶25

RCR No. 210 of 2018

¶26

could not vacate the tenanted premises so far, due to non-availability of other alternate arrangements. The said submission is opposed by the learned counsel for

¶27

the respondent and the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a reasonable time can be granted to vacate the tenanted premises.

¶28

Having regard to the submissions at the bar, the revision petitioner is given three more months' time from today to vacate the tenanted premises on the following conditions:

¶29

(1) The revision petitioner/tenant shall file an affidavit, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, expressing an undertaking that they will vacate the petition schedule shop room within three months from today.

¶30

(2) The revision petitioner/tenant shall deposit the entire arrears, if any, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Execution Court or the Rent Control Court, as the case may be, and shall continue to pay the rent without default.

¶31

(3) In the event of failure to comply with any of the

¶32

¶33

RCR No. 210 of 2018

¶34

conditions stated above, the time granted to vacate the premises will stand automatically vacated and the respondent/landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the eviction order.

¶35

The revision petition is disposed of as above.

sd/-

K.HARILAL JUDGE

sd/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE sks/2.12.2019

M. Basheer v. Keerachi Moyiloth Haseena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Basheer v. Keerachi Moyiloth Haseena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.N. Sidhique Vs State of Kerala

K.Ramdas Vs P.Ramaswamy

Pariyaram Veetil Kunhiraman Vs Parol Shaniba

Deepak Coilparambil Vs Sajitha

Biju Davis Vs Joby

S. Ajith Kumar Vs Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.