Dismissed

Kunhipurayil Mammootty v. Thayath Zeenath

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019RCRev./50/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a rent control revision challenging an eviction order. The court upheld the quasi-judicial finding of genuine landlord need but granted the tenant eight months to vacate and continue paying rent pending execution.

What did the court decide?

Guaranteed eight months time to vacate the premises on filing an affidavit in the Execution Court, while rent payment must continue during this period.

Kunhipurayil Mammootty Vs Thayath Zeenath — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

R.C.Rev.No.50 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 140/2015 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, THALASSERY DATED 31-10-2018

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 98/2013 OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF), KANNUR DATED 22-08-2015

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶11

KUNHIPURAYIL MAMMOOTTY, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.USMAN, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT RABIYA MANZIL, THALASSERY AMSOM, VADIKKAKAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 101.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) SMT.MEENA.A. SMT.M.R.MINI SRI.ASHWIN SATHYANATH SRI.ROHIT NANDAKUMAR SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

THAYATH ZEENATH, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.IBRAHIM, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT KANNUR II AMSOM, KANNOTHUMCHAL WARD, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 003.

¶15

SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL

¶16

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R.C.Rev.No.50 of 2019

..2..

ORDER

A.M.Shaffique, J.

This Rent Control Revision is filed challenging orders passed by the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.98 of 2013 as confirmed in R.C.A.No.140 of 2015. A building belonging to the respondent/landlady was taken on lease by the revision petitioner. After expiry of the period of lease the tenant remained in occupation. The landlady therefore filed the Rent Control Petition seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. According to the landlady, she and her husband were abroad. They have returned and have permanently settled at Kannur. She wants to start the business of ready-made garments in the petition schedule building. Since the building is suitable to start the business she wants vacant possession of the petition schedule building and accordingly sought for eviction. The tenant denied the aforesaid contention. It is inter alia contended that the landlady had filed a Rent Control Petition as R.C.P.No.253 of 1997 seeking eviction of the building alleging need of her

¶22

..3..

¶23

R.C.Rev.No.50 of 2019

¶24

father. Later on the matter had been settled on the basis of a compromise. The tenant denied the fact that the landlady had returned to India and that she intends to start her own business. According to the tenant, the bonafide need is not genuine and it is only a ruse to evict the tenant from the premises. That apart he contended that the income from the business is the only source of his livelihood and no other buildings were available in the locality to shift his business. Before the Rent Control Court the evidence consisted of oral testimony of PW1-the landlady. Ext.A1 to Ext.A1(b) were marked from the side of the respondent herein/landlady. RW1 to RW4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked from the side of the revision petitioner. As far as the bonafide need is concerned the landlady had clearly indicated that she and her husband had returned from abroad and they wanted to start a business in ready-made garments. Though she was cross-examined at length nothing has been brought out to discredit her need and accordingly the Rent Control Court had found that the need projected by the landlady was genuine.

¶25

R.C.Rev.No.50 of 2019

¶26

..4..

¶27

The above said facts when challenged in appeal was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Under such circumstances, when the fact finding court has already confirmed the need projected by the landlady, we don't think that we will be justified in interfering with the said finding of fact insofar as there is no impropriety, perversity or illegality in the said finding.

¶28

The tenant had also taken up a contention that the income from the business is the only source of livelihood and that there are no other buildings available in the locality. Apparently he was unable to prove that the income from the business was the only source of livelihood but some materials had been produced to indicate that there are no other suitable buildings in the locality. It is settled law that to claim the benefit of the proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act the tenant will have to prove both the ingredients, that the only source of livelihood is the income derived from the business and there are no other buildings available in the locality. Insofar as both the ingredients are not proved the Rent Control Court as well

¶29

..5..

¶30

R.C.Rev.No.50 of 2019

¶31

as the Rent Control Appellate Authority was justified in ordering eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. Therefore, we don't think that it is necessary to interfere with the judgment of the lower Authorities.

¶32

At this stage the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/appellant sought for time to vacate the premises.

¶33

We heard the learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect as well.

¶34

Having regard to the factual situation, it is only appropriate that some time is granted to the tenant to vacate the premises. Accordingly, while dismissing the Rent Control Revision we are of the view that eight month's time from this date is granted to the tenant to vacate the premises on condition of the tenant filing an affidavit before the Execution Court that he shall vacate the premises within a period of eight months from this date. The Execution Petition shall stand adjourned for eight months and in the event the tenant does not vacate the premises within the said period it shall be open

¶35

for the Execution Court to take further proceedings in

¶36

R.C.Rev.No.50 of 2019

¶37

..6..

¶38

accordance with law. The tenant shall also pay the rent during the aforesaid period without fail.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE

¶43

skj

Kunhipurayil Mammootty v. Thayath Zeenath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhipurayil Mammootty v. Thayath Zeenath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.R. Kunjumol Vs P.X.Sebastian

Shinu Skariah Vs John M.John @ Juby and Others

K.M.Ibray @Abdulla Ibrayi @ Bhai Vs State of Kerala

Saalmi Haji Vs Muhammedkutty @ Kunhava

Kamalaksha Vs Latha

Jayaprakash Vs Reena