Dismissed

Aseera, v. Sr. Jane Augustine

Kerala HC3 Dec 2021OP (RC)/21/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OP (RC) No. 21 of 2021, the High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition under Article 227 filed by the wife of a tenant. The petitioner sought enforcement of specific directions during rent control proceedings. However, the court observed that the underlying tenant had already been evicted, and dismissed the petition as not pressed on this ground.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's application was dismissed as not pressed due to the tenant's prior eviction.

Aseera, Vs Sr. Jane Augustine — 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

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

OP (RC) NO. 21 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE RETURN OF AN APPLICATION TO FILE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN AUTHORITY BY THE RESPONDENT IN RCP 19/2017 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (1ST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT), KOZHIKODE

¶9

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶10

ASEERA,AGED 53 YEARS W/O. A.M.ABDUL SAMAD, PEARLS GARDEN, EAST HILL ROAD, KOZHIKODE-5.

¶11

BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶13

SR. JANE AUGUSTINE,AGED 48 YEARS REVERENT MOTHER SUPERIOR, PRESIDENT, ST. VINCENT HOME, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.JOJU KYNADY SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SRI.A.ABDUL NABEEL

¶15

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-2-

¶17

OP (RC) NO. 21 OF 2021

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶20

The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff), Kozhikode, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Kozhikode to take Ext.P4 affidavit and petition dated 09.12.2020, Ext.P5 appeal filed against the order dated 12.11.2020 in R.C.P.No.19 of 2017 and Ext.P6 stay petition dated 09.12.2020 on its file considering the e-mail produced along with Ext.P4 as the written authority issued to the petitioner by the tenant in R.C.P.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode.

¶21

On 05.02.2021, when this matter came up for consideration, this Court issued urgent notice by speed post to the respondent. On 23.02.2021, the respondent entered appearance through counsel. On 29.03.2021, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, this Court passed the following order;

¶22

“The dispute is centered around Exts.P4, P5 and P6

¶23

-3-

¶24

OP (RC) NO. 21 OF 2021

¶25

applications pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the landlord/respondent that as on today the arrears of rent is above Rs.24 Lakhs. However, this is a disputed amount. It is the grievance of the landlord/respondent that despite suffering in eviction under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the tenant has not even deposited arrears of rent so far. Therefore, we direct the petitioner/tenant to clear off the entire admitted arrears before 20^th May, 2021 and time will not be extended thereafter.”

¶26

The tenant in R.C.P.No.19 of 2017 has not complied with the condition stipulated in the order of this Court dated 29.03.2021.

¶27

On 30.07.2021, when this original petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment. While listing the matter on 25.08.2021, this Court made it clear that the pendency of this original petition will not stand in the way of the respondent-landlord approaching the Execution Court for executing the order of eviction.

¶28

Today, when the case is taken up for consideration,

¶29

the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

¶30

-4-

¶31

OP (RC) NO. 21 OF 2021

¶32

tenant in R.C.P.No.19 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode has already been evicted from the petition schedule building and as such, the petitioner do not want to prosecute this original petition further. Therefore, this original petition may be dismissed as not pressed.

¶33

Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this original petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

AV/4/12

¶39

-5-

¶40

OP (RC) NO. 21 OF 2021

¶41

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 21/2021

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RENT CONTROL PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 1.2.2017.

¶44

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT IN IA.2876/2018 IN RCP 19/2017 OF RENT CONTROLLER COURT, KOZHIKODE.

¶45

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.11.2020 DISMISSING RCP 19/2017.

¶46

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED BEFORE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE DATED 9.12.2020.

¶47

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2020 IN RCP 19/2017.

¶48

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 9.12.2020.

Aseera, v. Sr. Jane Augustine

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aseera, v. Sr. Jane Augustine

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

Kariyadan Chandri @ Lakshmi Vs Koyitti Rajan

K.P.Ahammed Kunji Vs Sheela Pradeepan

T.K.Chandrakanth Vs Wilson Antony

M/S.Fluid and Electrolytes (P) Ltd. Vs M/S.Parallel Bottle Suppliers

M/S.Fluid & Electrolytes (P) Ltd. Vs M/S.Parallel Bottle Suppliers

Abdul Jabbar K.P Vs Mollamakkanathu Abdu