Disposed

Gtl Infrastructure Limited, v. Cheriyath Khalid

Kerala HC16 Dec 2021OP (RC)/143/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rent Petitioner sought to set aside execution proceedings and stay proceedings for two months to enable filing petitions to set aside an eviction order and condone delay. Bench directed Rent Control Court to decide pending applications within three months and stayed execution court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directing Rent Control Court to decide applications to set aside eviction order and condone delay within 3 months; staying execution proceedings pending such disposal.

Gtl Infrastructure Limited, Vs Cheriyath Khalid — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 OP (RC) NO. 143 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2020 IN E.P.NO.72 OF 2020 IN R.C.P.NO.57 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), THALASSERY

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,

¶9

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MAESTROS HOUSE, MIDC BUILDING NO.2, SECTOR-2, MILLENIUM BUSINESS PARK, MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI-400 710, HAVING ITS CIRCLE OFFICE AT DOOR NO.6/4514, PRABHUS TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, M.G. ROAD NORTH END, ERNAKULAM-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS CIRCLE HEAD AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, M.ESWARAVELAN.

¶10

BY ADV G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

CHERIYATH KHALID,

¶13

AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT BUSHARAS, P.O. TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, C.ASHARAF, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT RESHMI GHAR, P.O CHIRAKKARA, THALASSERY, PIN-670 104.

¶14

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 16.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

O.P.(RC) No.143 of 2020

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Ajithkumar, J.

¶19

This Original Petition was filed by the tenant-respondent in R.C.P.No.57 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thalassery, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The R.C.P. was filed seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petition was allowed and an exparte order of eviction was passed on 07.08.2019. The respondent filed E.P.No.72 of 2020 and the executing court has ordered delivery. The petitioner approached this Court at that stage seeking to set aside the entire proceedings in E.P.No.72 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.57 of 2018, to set aside the order of delivery in the said E.P. and in the meanwhile to stay the proceedings in the said E.P. for a period of two months so as to enable the petitioner to prefer a petition to set aside the exparte order along with a petition to condone the delay.

¶20

On 14.12.2020, this Court admitted the Original Petition directing notice to the respondent. The respondent

¶21

¶22

O.P.(RC) No.143 of 2020

¶23

received the notice, but did not choose to appear before this Court. The proceedings in E.P.No.72 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.57 of 2018 were stayed initially for one month. The order has been extended from time to time and the stay is still in force.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

petitioner.

¶26

It is seen from Ext.P1, order of eviction in R.C.P.No.57 of 2018, that M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd. was arraigned as the tenant. The petitioner would contend that Aircel group of companies namely, M/s Aircel Ltd., Aircel Cellular Ltd. and Dishnet Wireless Ltd. were the original tenants and the said companies were subsequently taken over by Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd. Eventually, the said company merged with M/s GTL Infrastructure Ltd. All such taking over and merger were through legal means and as approved by the competent authorities. Being the successor company, the petitioner has become the tenant. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, however, without giving any notice to the petitioner, Ext.P1 order was passed.

¶27

¶28

O.P.(RC) No.143 of 2020

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application to set aside Ext.P1 order along with an application to condone the delay was already filed before the Rent Control Court, Thalassery. Considering the contentions of the petitioner that without giving any notice to the petitioner, the said order of eviction was passed, it is only just and appropriate to decide the said petitions filed in the Rent Control Court before further proceeding with the execution proceedings.

¶30

Therefore, the Original Petition is disposed of by directing the Rent Control Court, Thalassery to decide the application to set aside Ext.P1 order dated 07.08.2019 in R.C.P.No.57 of 2018 and also the application filed along with it for condonation of delay, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Judgment Further, the executing court is directed not to proceed with E.P.No.72 of 2020 in the said R.C.P., till the disposal of the aforesaid applications. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion about the truth or falsity of the

¶31

¶32

O.P.(RC) No.143 of 2020

¶33

contentions raised by the petitioner in this Original Petition and the Rent Control Court will dispose of the aforesaid applications untrammeled by any of the observations herein.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

dkr

¶39

¶40

O.P.(RC) No.143 of 2020

¶41

APPENDIX OF O.P.(RC) NO.143 OF 2020

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RCP NO.57/2018 DATED 7.8.2019 OF THE RENT CONTROLLER/MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS SHOWING THE PENDENCY OF E.P.NO.72/2020 IN RCP NO.57/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROLLER/MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 20.7.2010 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT BY THE PREDECESSOR COMPANY OF THE PETITIONER.

Gtl Infrastructure Limited, v. Cheriyath Khalid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gtl Infrastructure Limited, v. Cheriyath Khalid

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinesh V.T Vs the Secretary

Kunnumbrath Beevi Vs Neeratti Muhammed Ashraf

Kunnumbrath Beevi Vs Puthanpurayil Hajira

Shyni.v.P Vs E.K.Ramesh Babu

E.K Ramesh Babu Vs V.P Shyni

Shyni V.P. Vs E.K. Ramesh Babu