Allowed

Sree Narayana Tourist Home v. the Church of South India Trust Association (Csita)

Kerala HC1 Sept 2021OP (RC)/84/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the original petition seeking reversal of an order dismissing an interlocutory application in a rent control ejectment proceeding. The Court permitted the petitioners to file a counter to the rent control petition within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order set aside and Ext.P4 application dismissed as withdrawn; petitioners permitted to file a counter within three weeks.

Sree Narayana Tourist Home Vs the Church of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943

¶7

OP (RC) NO. 84 OF 2021

¶8

(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.8.2021 IN I.A.NO. 1/2021 IN R.C.P.NO.1 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), DEVIKULAM)

¶9

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021.-RESPONDENTS IN R.C.P:

¶10

1 M/S.SREE NARAYANA TOURIST HOME

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,

¶12

MR.V.K.SADANANDAN,

¶13

AGED 82, S.N.SADANAM, A.M.ROAD, MUNNAR-685612.

¶14

2 V.K.SADANANDAN

¶15

AGED 82 YEARS, S/O KUNJUKUNJU, MANAGING PARTNER, SREE NARAYANA TOURIST HOME, S.N.SADANAM, A.M.ROAD, MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM-685612.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

P.B.KRISHNAN P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SABU GEORGE MANU VYASAN PETER

¶18

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2021 – PETITIONER IN R.C.P:

¶19

THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION (CSITA) REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND CHAIRMAN, MR.BABU ABRAHAM, AGED 65, S/O LATE V.A.ABRAHAM, THE BISHOP'S HOUSE, CSI DIOCESE OFFICE, P.B.NO.104, SHORNUR-679121.

¶20

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

:2:

¶22

O.P.(RC) No.84 of 2021

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

¶25

The petitioners, the tenants in Rent Control Petition No. 1 of 2020 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Devikulam, instituted by the respondent herein seeking eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenges Ext.P5 order in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in the above RCP. The landlord, the respondent herein had issued a statutory notice to the tenants (petitioners herein) under Section 11(2)(b), which is marked as Ext.P1. Ext.P1 refers to three lease agreements on which they have based their claims. By Ext.P2 the tenants replied, inter alia, stating:

¶26

“Our client has every reason to believe that, the aforesaid claim itself is as part of an attempt on the part of your client in seeking eviction of our client on some grounds, which are actually not in existence. Out client states that, they are occupying the building by fulfilling the terms and conditions as agreed between them and the land lord. All the averments contrary to the same are denied by them. Your client has not right to initiate any proceedings against our client. “

¶27

After exchange of notices as stated above, the landlord

¶28

:3:

¶29

O.P.(RC) No.84 of 2021

¶30

instituted the above Rent Control Petition. No counter was filed by the petitioners herein to the Rent Control Petition. Instead, Ext.P4, an application was filed with a prayer to produce the original power of attorney and lease agreements dated 06.06.2008, 15.06.2009, 07.01.2011, purported to be entered into between petitioner and the respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent herein did not file a counter to Ext.P4 petition. However, by the impugned order, the court below after hearing both sides held that the documents sought for are registered deeds and since the interlocutory application does not state whether the petitioners herein are unable to access the said documents or whether they are unaware of them, further found that there was no bonafides in the petition and accordingly, dismissed the application. It was further directed that the petitioners herein are obliged to file their objection within the statutory time prescribed under the Rent Control Act.

¶31

Assailing the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the landlord was bound to produce the documents which he relies on and in the absence of the same the

¶32

:4:

¶33

O.P.(RC) No.84 of 2021

¶34

Rent Control Petition is not maintainable.

¶35

We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶36

Taking note of the circumstances under which the Rent Control Court considered the I.A before it, we do not think that there is any infirmity in Ext.P5 order passed by the said Court. The petitioners, tenants never chose to file their objection stating their case or whether they admit or deny the documents relied on by the landlord and the same is not seen averred even in Ext.P2 reply notice. In that view of the matter, we do not think that the court below erred while passing Ext.P5 order.

¶37

At this juncture, and taking note of our views in the matter the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that he be permitted to file a counter to the Rent Control Petition within a period of three weeks from today and subject to that he be further permitted to withdraw Ext.P4 application so as to nullify the effect of Ext.P5 order. In view of the fact that the petitioners herein have now expressed their willingness to file a counter to

¶38

:5:

¶39

O.P.(RC) No.84 of 2021

¶40

the Rent Control Petition, we are inclined to accede to the request of learned counsel for the petitioners. This is more so because we also find that by granting such permission to the petitioners herein no prejudice will be caused to the respondent herein.

¶41

In the result, we allow the above O.P(RC) by directing that if the petitioners file a counter to the Rent Control Petition within a period of three weeks from today, Ext.P5 order will stand set aside and Ext.P4 application dismissed as withdrawn. It will be open to the petitioners to thereafter file any application in the nature of Ext.P4 before the Rent Control Court, if so advised.

¶42

The O.P(RC) is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶45

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶46

mns

¶47

:6:

¶48

O.P.(RC) No.84 of 2021

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶51

EXHIBIT P1: DATED 28.11.2019, TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER/DEMAND NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN

¶52

EXHIBIT P2: DATED 17.12.2019, TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONERS ADVOCATE

¶53

EXHIBIT P3: DATED 4.12.2020, TRUE COPY OF R.C.P.NO.1 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), DEVIKULAM

¶54

EXHIBIT P4: DATED 9.7.2021, TRUE COPY OF I.A NO.1 OF 2021 IN RCP.NO.1 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), DEVIKULAM

¶55

EXHIBIT P5: DATED 9.8.2021, TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A NO.1 OF 2021 IN RCP.NO.1 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), DEVIKULAM

¶56

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

P.A TO JUDGE

Sree Narayana Tourist Home v. the Church of South India Trust Association (Csita)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Narayana Tourist Home v. the Church of South India Trust Association (Csita)

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

N.C.Abdul Azeez Vs Dr. N.M. Abdul Majeed

The Executive Chairman, Saintgits College of Engineering Vs Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges

State of Kerala Vs Markose.v.T

T. Vinod Kumar, Vs a.Damodharan Nair

State of Kerala Vs Geethu R.Prasad

State of Kerala Vs Reshma Salim