Dismissed

Jabbar @ Abdul Jabbar, v. Abdul Sathar

Kerala HC21 Feb 2019RCRev./70/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against eviction order. Court upheld finding that landlord requires premises for bona fide residential business. Dismissed tenant claims of main source of income and vacancy of other rooms. Granted seven months to vacate upon complying with conditions regarding affidavit and arrears deposit.

What did the court decide?

Tenant granted seven months to vacate premises, subject to filing an affidavit and depositing arrears of rent.

Jabbar @ Abdul Jabbar, Vs Abdul Sathar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940

¶7

RCRev..No. 70 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA No.15/2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 05-10-2018

¶9

AND

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP No.23/2008 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR DATED 22-11-2014

¶11

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

JABBAR @ ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KUNJIKADER, THANATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR

¶14

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶15

ABDUL SATHAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. PALLAI PEEDIKAYIL BAVA, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RCRevNo70/2019 2

O R D E R

ANNIE JOHN, J.

This Rent Control Revision Petition is filed against the judgment dated 05.10.2018 in R.C.A No.15/2015 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge, Irinjalakuda) and also against the order dated 22.11.2014 in R.C.P No.23/2008 on the file of Rent Controller, Kodungallur.

¶21

2. The petitioner is the tenant/respondent in R.C.P. No.23/2008 on the files of the Rent Control

¶22

Court, Kodugallur and the appellant in R.C.A. No.15/2015 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It was contended that the Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent herein for evicting the Revision Petitioner under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) & 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. It was contended by the respondent that the petition schedule shop

¶23

RCRevNo70/2019 3

¶24

room is owned by him and his brothers as per document No.1132/2007 of S.R.O., Mathilakam. Father of the respondent herein is conducting fruit business in the shop room adjacent to the north of the petition schedule shop room. Since the respondent is unemployed has no source income and he bonafide requires the petition schedule shop room for conducting the business. He further has taken a contention that the revision petitioner herein is doing jewellery works in the petition schedule shop room and the respondent (landlord) wants to conduct kids ready made and toy shop room and he has ability and capability to do the same. It was also contended that the revision petitioner herein has been doing real estate and textile business in another shop room and that vacant shop rooms are available in the locality to shift his business. Accordingly, the respondent has issued lawyer notice on 17.06.2008 to the revision petitioner to get vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room. The revision petitioner had sent a reply stating that the

¶25

RCRevNo70/2019 4

¶26

landlord has been doing fruit business in a shop room adjacent to the petition schedule shop room.

¶27

3. After hearing both sides and after taking evidence the Rent Control Court has allowed the application and during the argument the landlord did not press the relief under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v) of the Act and allowed under Section 11(3)

¶28

of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

¶29

4. Highly aggrieved by the same, Rent Control Appeal was filed. Ext.A1 is the deed produced by the respondent which would prove that the respondent and his brothers became owners of the petition schedule shop room and this fact has not been challenged by the revision petitioner. Now the main allegations in the petition is that the petition schedule shop room is required bonafidely for the respondent/landlord

¶30

who intends to start a kids wear and toy shop in petition schedule room. Ext.C1 is the Commission report of this case and the Commissioner who visited the shop room reported that kids ready made shop and

¶31

RCRevNo70/2019 5

¶32

toy shop can be started in petition schedule shop room and the landlord has testified before the court below that he has no other job and further he has stated that his father was also doing fruit business and it is proved by the respondent/landlord to the effect that he requires the building for own occupation for starting a kids wear shop. Even

¶33

though the appellant/tenant has taken several contentions that the bonafide requirement has urged by the landlord is only under the ruse for eviction

¶34

of the appellant. Anyhow, the lower Court has considered all these aspects and found that the respondent has no other job and the building is required for starting intended business therein. We have also gone through the evidence adduced by the either sides and found that there is no ground to interfere with the finding entered by the lower

¶35

court as well as the appellate court herein. Even though the revision petitioner has attempted to prove that the income that arises from the textile shop is the main source of income and no other rooms

¶36

RCRevNo70/2019 6

¶37

are available in the locality also. From the Commission report as well as from the evidence of the RW1 itself, it has come out that many other vacant rooms are available in the near locality and further the appellant has not discharged burden to show that income which arises from the petition shop room is the main source income to have the livelihood. He has failed to produce any account details regarding his business and the existence of other vacant room near locality also. So the revision petitioner is miserably failed to establish that he is entitled to get benefits under the 1^st and 2^nd proviso of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

¶38

5. The learned counsel for the revision

¶39

petitioner submitted that there is concurrent finding entered by the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, so he requires some time to vacate the building. Accordingly, after going through the argument, we are having a considered opinion that no interference is required

¶40

RCRevNo70/2019 7

¶41

in this case and the finding entered by the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority is only to the upheld.

¶42

6. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that considerable period of time may be granted to the revision petitioner to vacate the rented premises. Considering the submission made by him, we are inclined to grant seven months to vacate the rented premises on the following conditions :-

¶43

i) 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 eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44

ii) 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. iii) In the event of failure to comply with

¶45

RCRevNo70/2019 8

¶46

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.

¶47

This Rent Control Revision Petition is

¶48

disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL JUDGE

Sd/-

ANNIE JOHN

JUDGE

YKB

Jabbar @ Abdul Jabbar, v. Abdul Sathar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabbar @ Abdul Jabbar, v. Abdul Sathar

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

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

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

Kakkuzhiyil Basheer Vs C.K.Gopinathan

Hussain, Vs Aminakutty

K.Pradeep Kumar Vs E.Joseph Simon

Karim Vs Shamla