Dismissed

Illath Purayil Suresh v. Mylanchikkal Kalathil Abdurahiman

Kerala HC26 Nov 2019RCRev./371/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a revision petition challenging an eviction order. The court upheld the lower courts finding that the tenant failed to prove he occupied another building for a computer service centre, rejecting the claim that the additional building was sufficient for his requirements. Time was granted for eviction subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Tenant granted four months to vacate premises on conditions: filing an affidavit of undertaking and depositing arrears.

Illath Purayil Suresh Vs Mylanchikkal Kalathil Abdurahiman — 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

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

RCRev..No.371 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 124/2014 DATED 29-01-2018 OF

¶9

RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/

¶10

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE – I, THALASSERY

¶11

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 187/2013 DATED 30-06-2014 OF

¶12

RENT CONTROL COURT/PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT ,KANNUR

¶13

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶14

ILLATH PURAYIL SURESH,S/O GOVINDAN, AGED 48 YEARS,PROPRIETOR,'SHIFA MEDICALS', OPP M.M. HOSPITAL,POST PAPPINISSERI, KANNUR- 670 561.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR

¶16

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶17

MYLANCHIKKAL KALATHIL ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI,AGED 72 YEARS, BUSINESS,NEAR MUNDAPRAM PALLI, P.O. CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR -670 301.

¶18

BY ADV. SMT.C.LEENA

¶19

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

R.C.R.No.371/2018

ORDER

K. Harilal, J.

The legality and correctness of the findings of the courts below, granting an order of eviction under Section 11(4) (iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 are challenged in this revision petition.

¶25

The revision petitioner and the respondent are tenant and landlord respectively, in R.C.P. No. 187/2013, on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kannur as well as in R.C.A. No. 124/2014. According to the respondent herein, the revision petitioner herein/tenant already had in his possession of building, reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the same town. The revision petitioner herein, admitted the possession of another building in the same town. But according to him, he has been conducting the office of his computer service centre in the other building. On the rival pleas, both parties

¶26

R.C.R.No.371/2018

¶27

¶28

adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record, the courts below concurrently found that, the revision petitioner herein miserably failed to prove his occupancy of the other building, for the office of his computer service centre and on the other hand, the evidence on record would prove that, he is in vacant possession of the said building. The legality and propriety of the said findings is under challenge in this revision petition.

¶29

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

¶30

Admittedly, the revision petitioner has in his possession another building. According to the revision petitioner, the said building is occupied by him for conducting office of his computer service centre. Therefore, the point we consider is, whether the petitioner has succeeded in proving his occupancy of the other building for the office of his computer service centre. It has come out in evidence

¶31

R.C.R.No.371/2018

¶32

¶33

by Ext.C1 Commission report that, the other building, which is in his possession, is reasonably sufficient for conducting the medical shop, which is being conducted in the tenanted premises. No evidence has been adduced, to prove that the other building is occupied, for conducting the office of the computer service centre. On the other hand, in Ext.C1 Commission report, the Advocate Commissioner after inspecting the building, stated that no business was being conducted in the said building and further, the Advocate Commissioner noticed that waste card boards and some computer accessories were kept in the building and completely covered with dust.

¶34

As rightly observed by the courts below, Ext.C1 report could negate the case of the petitioner that, the other building, which is in his possession, is being used for the office of his computer service centre. In short, the respondent has disproved the

¶35

R.C.R.No.371/2018

¶36

¶37

case of the petitioner that, he has occupied the other building for conducting office of his computer service centre. In the above analysis, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the courts below that the petitioner has in his possession another building, which is reasonably sufficient for his requirements, in the same city.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some more time to vacate the tenanted premises. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given four months time from today to vacate the tenanted premises on the following conditions:

¶39

(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 he will vacate the petition schedule shop room within four months from today.

¶40

(2) The revision petitioner/tenant shall deposit

¶41

R.C.R.No.371/2018

¶42

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

The revision petition fails and dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

K. HARILAL JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S. DIAS JUDGE

ncd/27/11/19

Illath Purayil Suresh v. Mylanchikkal Kalathil Abdurahiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Illath Purayil Suresh v. Mylanchikkal Kalathil Abdurahiman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Surendran Vs a.Abdul Majeed

Abraham Paul Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Goldie George Vs Anvy Parangottu Mathew

Rajesh Vs Shiji

Riyas Aali @ Riyas Vs Shamliya Baby

Aquina, Vs Superindentent