The Special Bench allowed the accused's bail petition quoted from the judgment above. The court dismissed the revision petitions challenging eviction orders for dilapidation and required tenants to vacate within six months to allow reconstruction.
Eviction orders maintained; tenants granted six months to vacate for reconstruction purposes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941
RCRev..No.308 of 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 21/2015 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 148/2013 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR - ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
ABDURASAQUE HAJI.K.M., AGED 66 YEARS S/O.MUHAMED SAIL, C.P.IV 866, KATTAMPALLY ROAD, PUTHIYATHERU, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR, PIN-670011.
BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE SRI.G.GIREESH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: KURIKKALAKATH SULAIKHA AGED 60 YEARS D/O.KURIKKALAKATH SAFIYA, NEAR ASARIKAMBANI, PUTHIYATHERU, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR, PIN-670011.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2019 ALONG WITH R.C.R. 309/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCR NOS. 308 & 309/2019
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941
RCRev..No.309 of 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 14/2015 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY DATED 12-03-2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 152/2013 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KANNUR - ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR DATED 31-10-2014
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
K.P.YOUSAF HAJEE,
AGED 81 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, C.P IV 865, KATTAMPALLY ROAD, PUTHIYATHERU, CHIRAKKAL P.O, KANNUR, PIN 670 011
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE SRI.G.GIREESH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
KURIKKALAKATH FARSANA
AGED 31 YEARS D/O. KURIKKALAKATH SULAIKHA, NEAR ASARIKAMBANI, PUTHIYATHERU, CHIRAKKAL P.O, KANNUR, PIN 670 011
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2019 ALONG WITH R.C.R. 308/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RCR NOS. 308 & 309/2019
3
ORDER
A. Hariprasad, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.
tenants under the respective respondents. The respondents are mother and daughter. Daughter filed RCP No. 152 of 2013 before the Rent Control Court urging grounds for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1965 (for short 'the Act'). Mother, who is the respondent in R.C.R. No. 308 of 2019, also filed RCP.No. 148 of 2013 urging grounds under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the
Act. The above rent control petitions along with another one were jointly tried by the Rent Control Court. As per a common order, the eviction petitions were allowed under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the tenants
RCR NOS. 308 & 309/2019
4
approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery by filing R.C.A. No. 14 of 2015 and 21 of 2015. Those appeals were
disposed of through separate judgments by the Rent Control
Appellate Authority.
dilapidated condition and it requires urgent reconstruction. The
materials produced before the court, including the plan and
license, were relied on by the authorities below to find that
reconstruction of the building is an essential requirement.
specifically considered by the authorities below. The plan and
RCR NOS. 308 & 309/2019
5
license issued by the local authority would show that construction of a new building is not an impossibility. The
factual question has been considered and answered by the authorities below. We do not find any prejudice to the revision petitioners if they are asked to wait outside until a new building is constructed as they have the first option to occupy a convenient space in the new building on payment of reasonable rent.
involved in these cases, we find that the authorities below have acted well within their jurisdiction, conferred on them and entered a correct finding. Therefore, the revision petitions are without any merits and they are dismissed.
However, the request made by the learned counsel for
the revision petitioners to grant a reasonable time to locate
another building for temporarily shifting their business is
RCR NOS. 308 & 309/2019
6
allowable. The revision petitioners shall find out another suitable accommodation to shift their business so as to enable the landlord to reconstruct the building as early as possible and the maximum time allowable to the tenants to vacate is six months.
It is made clear that no further time will be allowed. The revision petitioners shall file affidavits before the Rent Control Court unconditionally undertaking to vacate in six months in two
weeks, failing which the landlords can seek execution of the order.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
Sd/-
SHIRCY V.
JUDGE
sb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the eviction of tenants was lawful under the statutory grounds of deterioration and urgent reconstruction.
Whether the revision petitioners had any merit in challenging the reconstruction aspects of the eviction.
Whether the tenants were entitled to a reasonable time to vacate the premises without prejudice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdurasaque Haji.K.M.
Kp.Youssuf Hajee
Kurikkalakath Sulaiakha
Kurikkalakath Farsana
A.Hariprasad
Shircy V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
