Remanded

T.M.Abdul Jaleel v. V.A Mohammed Haneefa

Kerala HC20 Feb 2019RCRev./44/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition against the dismissal of an eviction appeal by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The High Court found the lower court failed to address the appellant's contentions despite stating counsel was heard, violating natural justice, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal on merits within one month after hearing both parties.

T.M.Abdul Jaleel Vs V.A Mohammed Haneefa — Writ and Judicial Review | 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 MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶7

RCRev.No. 44 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.5935/2016 IN RCA 73/2014 of II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT AND RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM DATED 08-08-2018

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 146/2003 of III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 25-07-2014

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT :

¶11

T.M.ABDUL JALEEL, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ALI MAKKAR, M/S. ALI MAKKAR AGENCY, JEWS STREET, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SMT.P.SEENA SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.N.MANMADAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED

¶13

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS :

¶14

1 V.A MOHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O LATE V.K. ABDUL KHADER, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THEVAKKAL, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN - 682 012.

¶15

2 V.M. MOHAMMED ANSAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. V.A. MOHAMMED HANEEFA, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, THEVAKKAL, S.R.M.ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN - 682 012.

¶16

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING :

¶17

RCRev.No. 44 of 2019

ORDER

K.Harilal, J.

The revision petitioner is the tenant, who suffered an order dismissing the Rent Control Appeal No.73/2014 filed by him before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The aforesaid appeal was filed challenging an order of eviction passed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 [Hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act']. According to the revision petitioner, the said appeal was dismissed without affording an opportunity to argue the case, to his counsel. Though, his counsel has filed IA.No.3369/2016 seeking adjournment due to his inconvenience to appear before the court, the said IA was dismissed. Thereafter, the counsel appearing for the respondent was heard on the

¶22

RCRev.No. 44 of 2019

¶23

¶24

same day and dismissed the appeal also. It is further contended that though in the judgment, it is stated that the counsel for the appellant was also heard, actually the counsel for the appellant was not heard before the dismissal of the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed without hearing him, the revision petitioner had preferred IA.No.5935/2016 in the said RCA under order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review judgment passed earlier. But, that review petition was also dismissed on a finding that the judgment shows that the counsel for the appellant was heard before rendering judgment. Thus, this revision petition is filed challenging the order dismissing the review petition and the judgment dismissing the appeal.

¶25

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

¶26

Going by the order passed in

¶27

RCRev.No. 44 of 2019

¶28

¶29

IA.No.5935/2016, we find that the said review petition was dismissed on a finding that the proceedings in the

¶30

'B' diary shows that on 01.07.2016, the appeal was posted for hearing and it was heard on that day and the court posted the appeal for orders to 11.07.2016. On 11.07.2016, it was notified to 13.07.2016 and on 13.07.2016, the appeal was dismissed. A perusal of the judgment in the above RCA dated 13.07.2016 also shows that both sides were heard and the appeal was disposed of on merits.

¶31

In view of the proceedings shown in the 'B'

¶32

diary and the endorsement made in the judgment, we do not find fault with the court below in dismissing the review petition. We have gone through the judgment passed in RCA.No.73/2014 on merits. On an overall analysis of the findings, we are not satisfied with the reasonings in the said judgment. Though in the said judgment, it is stated that the counsel appearing for

¶33

RCRev.No. 44 of 2019

¶34

¶35

the appellant was heard, none of the contentions raised by the counsel appearing for the appellant is seen referred to in the impugned judgment. It appears that the judgment has been rendered on the basis of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. “ Audi alteram partem ” is a solemn principle to be strictly observed in the administration of justice. In the above view, we are of the opinion that an opportunity can be given to the revision petitioner to argue the appeal on merits.

¶36

Having regard to the cause of justice, we feel that the appeal requires remand for fresh consideration on merits, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the counsel appearing for the appellant. Hence, the impugned order and judgment under challenge passed in RCA.No.73/2014 are set aside and the memorandum of appeal is remitted to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and disposal. The

¶37

RCRev.No. 44 of 2019

¶38

¶39

Appellate Authority shall dispose the appeal, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both counsel appearing for the parties. Parties shall appear before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam on 28.02.2019.

¶40

Registry is directed to transmit the records forthwith to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam.

¶41

Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE

¶42

Sd/- ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE

¶43

RKM

T.M.Abdul Jaleel v. V.A Mohammed Haneefa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Abdul Jaleel v. V.A Mohammed Haneefa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Damodara Pai Vs B.Govindan

K.M.Gopinathan, Vs K.M.Sethumadhavan

Molecules Design Factory (P)Ltd., Vs Mariyam

M/S. Speed and Safe Courier Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thattante Parambath Usman

Kakkuzhiyil Basheer Vs C.K.Gopinathan

Khadeeja Vs v.Haris Haji