Dismissed

Nikhil N., v. the Authorised Officer

Kerala HC7 Oct 2021WP(C)/18171/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this writ petition seeking quashing of possession notices. The petitioner, granted multiple extensions to vacate a leased property, failed to move out. Despite an undertaking to vacate, they were still in possession. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the respondents to proceed with eviction, waiving costs due to the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the writ petitioner is free to proceed with possession in accordance with the law.

Nikhil N., Vs the Authorised Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 15TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 18171 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 NIKHIL N., AGED 30 YEARS S/O.K. NALAN, RESIDING AT ANJALI, TRWA 472, T.C. 50/855, THALIYAL, KARAMANA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 002. 2 SYED ALI A.L., AGED 46 YEARS S/O. ABDUL LATHEEF, SWEET RAM'S VILLA, T.C. 48/98 (5), JUBILI NAGAR, KALLATTUMUKKU, MANACAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009. BY ADV S.JUSTUS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, # 1078, 2ND FLOOR, IITH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI PURAM MAIN ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 086. 2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW T.C. NO. 16/659(6), IST FLOOR, 'SPRINGS' THYCAUD P.O., COTTON HILL, EDAPAZHANJI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014. 3 A.P. AJAYAN, ADVOCATE AND RECEIVER, (RECEIVER OF O.P.(IP), NO. 3/2017 OF IST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), VASANTHA BUILDINGS, ATHANI LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. 4 K. NIRMALAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, KRISHNA NIVAS, MATHANPALA, PALUKAL P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, 629170. BY ADV P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2021, THE

¶11

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 18171 OF 2021

¶13

¶14

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J

¶15

===========================

¶16

W.P.(C) No.18171 of 2021

¶17

¶18

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2021

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The limited prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to quash Ext.P6(a) and Ext.P6(b). Ext.P6(a)

¶21

and Ext.P6(b) are notices issued by the Advocate

¶22

Commissioner seeking to take posession of the property.

¶23

A perusal of the exhibits produced by the petitioner reveals that the writ petitioner had preferred W.P.(C) No.1177/2020 in which a judgment was passed on

¶24

22.01.2020 wherein the petitioner was granted time

¶25

upto 01.05.2020 to vacate the building in question. Thereafter, by Ext.P5 order the said time limit was

¶26

extended upto 01.09.2020. Later by Ext.P5(b), the

¶27

time limit was extended upto 28.02.2021 that too

¶28

with the rider that the said extension will be as a

¶29

WP(C) NO. 18171 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

last chance.

¶32

Inspite of the time extension, the petitioner refused to vacate from the building and had the audacity to file yet another writ petition raising various contentions.

¶33

When the matter was taken up on 07.09.2021, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner needs only a breathing time to vacate the premises. The case was therefore posted to 16.09.2021; on which date, it was undertaken that the petitioner will vacate the building within 20 days thereafter. Today, when the case is taken up, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the building has not been vacated and that the petitioner is clinging on to the building which they had undertaken to vacate by 09.10.2021.

¶34

Having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, I am of the opinion that this is a case which merits

¶35

WP(C) NO. 18171 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

dismissal on imposition of costs. However, in view of the Covid-19 pandemic situation, I refrain myself

¶38

from imposing costs upon the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition shall stand dismissed and the respondents are free to proceed in accordance with

¶39

law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

AMV/13/10//2021

¶43

WP(C) NO. 18171 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18171/2021

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1(A)	TRUE COPY OF 16.07.2015 BETWEE RESPONDENT.	THE N THE	RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED IST PETITION AND THE 4TH
Exhibit P1(B)	TRUE COPY OF 07.01.2015 BETWEE RESPONDENT.	THE N THE	RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 2ND PETITIONER AND THE 4TH
Exhibit P2(A)	TRUE COPY OF 15.01.2018 BETWEE RESPONDENT RECEIV	THE N THE ER.	RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED IST PETITIONER AND THE 3RD
Exhibit P2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE BETWEEN THE 2ND P RECEIVER.	RENTAL ETITIO	AGREEMENT DATED 1.12.2017 NER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND PETITIONE	LETTE R.	R DATED 18.02.2019 SENT BY
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE NO. 1177/2020 OF	JUDGME THIS H	NT DATED 22.01.2020 IN WPC ON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P5(A)	ORDER DATED 12.06 NO. 1177/2020 OF	.2020 THIS H	IN I.A. NO. 1/2020 IN WPC ON'BLE COURT .
Exhibit P5(B)	ORDER DATED 30.01 NO. 1177/2020 OF	.2020 THIS H	IN I.A. NO. 2/2020 IN WPC ONBLE COURT .
Exhibit P6(A)	TRUE COPY OF COMMISSIONER DATE PETITIONER.	THE D 31.	NOTICE OF THE ADVOCATE 08.2021 ISSUED TO THE IST
Exhibit P6(B)	TRUE COPY OF COMMISSIONER DATE PETITIONER.	THE D 31.	NOTICE OF THE ADVOCATE 08.2021 ISSUED TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS	NIL

¶47

TRUE COPY

Nikhil N., v. the Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil N., v. the Authorised Officer

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

Prasanna Kumar R Vs the District Labour Officer

Nishad M.B Vs the District Labour Officer

Asianet Digital Network Private Limited Vs Union of India

Sethumadhavan V.J. Vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank

Biju .v.T Vs the Authorized Officer

Prakash Vs the District Collector