Disposed

Rajesh George v. Poozhiupurath Rosa

Kerala HC4 Nov 2019RCRev./411/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a granddaughter's elopement and subsequent marriage severing her family ties does not negate the bonafide need for a dental clinic, thereby validating the eviction order. However, the tenant was granted six months to vacate subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six months to vacate premises on conditions of filing an affidavit of undertaking and depositing arrears; time stands automatically vacated if conditions are not met.

Rajesh George Vs Poozhiupurath Rosa — Execution and Attachment | 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 N.NAGARESH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

RCRev..No.411 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 11/2018 DATED 03-07-2019 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT JUDGE), KALPETTA, WAYANAD

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 31/2014 DATED 13-04-2018 OF MUNCIFF MAGISTRATE COURT,MANANTHAVADY

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

RAJESH GEORGE AGED 39 YEARS S/O.U.V.GEORGE, UPPUVETTIL HOUSE, VIMALA NAGAR POST, MANANTHAVADY AMSOM, OZHAKKODI DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD-670645.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL

¶13

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

POOZHIUPURATH ROSA,AGED 79 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, PALLICHAMKUDY HOUSE, NALLORNAD AMSOM AND POST, PULIKKAD DESOM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD-670645.

¶15

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RCRev..No.411 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 4th day of November 2019

¶20

Harilal,J

¶21

This Rent Control Revision has been filed challenging the legality and propriety of the concurrent findings whereby, the courts below have passed order of eviction against petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). According to the respondent, she bonadife needs the petition schedule building for starting a Dental Clinic for his granddaughter, who is a BDS Degree holder. It is also alleged that she has no other buildings of her own to start the aforesaid Dental Clinic for her granddaughter and the petitioner is not depending on the income from the business conducted in the tenanted premises and several other vacant buildings are available in the locality to shift the respondent's business from the tenanted premises. The petitioner herein

¶22

RCRev..No.411 OF 2019

¶23

¶24

resisted the said claim for eviction on the ground that the need projected is not bonafide and he is entitled to get a protection under 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. On the aforesaid rival pleadings both parties adduced evidence and after considering the evidence on record the courts below concurrently found that the need projected is bonafide and the petitioner herein is not entitled to get protection under 2^nd proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to highlight the subsequent events allegedly occurred, after the passing of order of eviction. According to the learned counsel, those events would eclipse the banafide projected in the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the passing of order of eviction, the dependent, for whose need the rent control petition was filed, eloped with her lover, in accordance with her own will and wish only and thereafter she is living separately far away from the petition schedule shoproom and she has no connection with her family. The family relationship has been severed on the event

¶26

RCRev..No.411 OF 2019

¶27

¶28

of her elopment. Therefore, the bonafide need projected in the petition has ceased to exist at present and the same has fundamental impact on the bonafide need, for which the order of eviction has been passed concurrently. In order to fortify the said argument the learned counsel cited the decision laid down by this Court in Iritti Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd. v.

¶29

C.C.Damodaran and Another [2010(4) KHC 368].

¶30

In view of the arguments the sole question that

¶31

arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the elopment of the dependent, for whose need the order of eviction has been passed, with her lover would cause any fundamental impact, on the bonafide need projected in the rent control petition. Admittedly, the dependent, for whose need the order of eviction passed, is a BDS graduate, who desirous of starting a Dental Clinic of her own and the court found that the need projected for the dependent is bonafide and genuine. But, it is the case of the petitioner that she eloped with her lover and started to live with him in matrimony, at a place far away from the petition schedule building, and she has severed her

¶32

RCRev..No.411 OF 2019

¶33

¶34

relationship with all other family members. We are of the view that even if the subsequent development highlighted by the petitioner is taken at its face value and accepted as such, the same would not cause any fundamental impact on the bonafide need projected in the petition. Merely on the reason that she eloped with her lover, got married and living separately, it cannot be said that the need projected has ceased to exist. Even if she married started to live separately with her husband, it may be for the time being and it cannot be treated as severence of family relationship forever. That apart, even if she is residing separately she can come and start the Dental Clinic of her own in the petition schedule shoproom anytime. The respondent herein being a grandmother will not loose her love and affection to her granddaughter. Thus the elopment of the dependent with her lover will not cause any fundamental impact on the banafide need projected in the rent control petition and the order for eviction granted by the courts below concurrently.

¶35

We have gone through the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the said decision also it is

¶36

RCRev..No.411 OF 2019

¶37

¶38

specifically held that only those subsequent events, which completely eclipse the need projected by the landlord or those which have a fundamental impact either on the right of the landlord to get eviction or on liability of tenant to suffer eviction need be considered by Authorities. It follows that each and every event that occurs during pendency of proceedings need not be considered. It is already held that the subsequent events will not completely eclipse the need projected by the landlord and the relationship and the family bondage will be resumed, by the passage of time. Hence, we do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the findings of the trial court concurrently passed order of eviction under Section 11(3) and we do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner highlighting the subsequent events allegedly happened. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to vacate the tenanted premises.

¶39

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

¶40

case the petitioner is given six months time to vacate the tenanted premises on following conditions:-

¶41

RCRev..No.411 OF 2019

¶42

¶43

(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 six months from today.

¶44

(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.

¶45

(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.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL

JUDGE

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

dlk/04.11.19

Rajesh George v. Poozhiupurath Rosa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh George v. Poozhiupurath Rosa

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

D. Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Raji R.K.

Anshad Kunjumon Vs the District Police Chief

K.L.Raju, Vs Sibi.K.Varghese

Rajula S.Bharathan Vs K.Shaji

Sreerag Vs Amritha Menon

P.P.Saina Vs K.M.Gopi