Quashed

Sudheedharan v. Musthafa

Kerala HC19 Aug 2022OP (RC)/101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227, the Kerala High Court quashed premature dismissal and execution orders of the Principal Munsiff Court. The Court held that dismissing a hearing on non-readiness and ordering eviction without prior production of agreed documents was arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders of the Principal Munsiff Court-II were set aside. The pending execution proceedings are restored for fresh hearing within one month.

Sudheedharan Vs Musthafa — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶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
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944
O.P.(RC)NO.101 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2022 IN E.A.NO.188 OF 2022 IN
E.P.NO.36 OF 2022 IN R.C.P.NO.109 OF 2016 OF PRINCIPAL

¶7

MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶9

SUDHEEDHARAN
AGED 49 YEARS
CHELOOTTU HOUSE, MOTHU VEEDATHU PARAMBU,
KOTTOOLI, KOZHIKODE - PIN 673001,
BY ADVS.
K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
BONNY BENNY
BALU TOM
GOVIND G. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

MUSTHAFA
AGED 58 YEARS
PULLIYULLATHIL PARAMBIL,
POOVATTUPARAMBU.P.O.,PERUVAYAL,
KOZHIKODE - PIN 673008.,
BY ADV SHARAN SHAHIER

¶12

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

O.P.(RC)NO.101 OF 2022

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶17

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff Court-II), Kozhikode, a petition filed by respondent hereinlandlord under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room. The petitioner-tenant has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an order to quash Ext.P4 order dated 05.04.2022 of the Rent Control Court in E.A.No.188 of 2022 in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016, whereby that application filed by the tenant seeking an order directing the landlord to produce before court the compromise agreement executed between the landlord and the tenant, stands rejected. The said order reads thus;

¶18

“ Not ready for hearing. Hence dismissed.”

¶19

Since E.A.No.188 of 2022 stands dismissed, the execution court ordered delivery in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016, by Ext.P5 order dated 05.04.2022.

¶20

¶21

O.P.(RC)NO.101 OF 2022

¶22

On 20.05.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice on admission to the respondent, returnable by 25.05.2022. Registry was directed to call for a report from the Principal Munsiff-II, Kozhikode on the present status of E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016 and also the relevant extract of A-Diary relating to Ext.P4 order. On 20.05.2022, this Court granted an interim order, which reads thus;

¶23

“The delivery of the petition schedule shop room in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016, which is the subject matter of E.P.No.36 of 2022, on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court-II, Kozhikode, shall be deferred for a period of ten days, if not already effected.”

¶24

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.05.2022, report dated 24.05.2022 of the Principal Munsiff-I, who is in charge of Principal Munsiff-II, Kozhikode is placed on record. A copy of the A-Diary relating to Ext.P4 order is also enclosed along with that report. On 25.05.2022, since service of notice was not complete, the petitioner was directed to take out notice to the respondent by speed post, returnable within two weeks. The interim order granted on 20.05.2022, to defer delivery of the

¶25

¶26

O.P.(RC)NO.101 OF 2022

¶27

petition schedule shop room in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court-II, Kozhikode, was extended for a period of three weeks.

¶28

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also

¶30

the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord would submit that, though, on 05.04.2022, the execution court heard both sides on E.A.No.188 of 2022 in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016 filed by the tenant seeking an order directing the landlord to produce the compromise agreement executed between the landlord and the tenant, the said application was dismissed by the order dated 05.04.2022, on the ground that parties are not ready for hearing.

¶31

A copy of E.A.No.188 of 2022 in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016 is marked as Ext.P2 in this original petition. That application, which was filed on 31.03.2022, was listed before the execution court on 05.04.2022. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of the counter filed by the landlord in E.A.No.188 of 2022 in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of

¶32

¶33

O.P.(RC)NO.101 OF 2022

¶34

2016, which is one dated 04.04.2022. On 05.04.2022, when E.A.No.188 of 2022 was listed for hearing for the first time, the execution court dismissed that application by Ext.P4 order, on the ground that parties are not ready for hearing. The procedure adopted by the execution court, i.e., the Principal Munsiff CourtII, Kozhikode is per se arbitrary and illegal. Since E.A.No.188 of 2022 stands dismissed, the execution court ordered delivery in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016, by Ext.P5 order dated 05.04.2022. We notice the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord that, on 05.04.2022, the execution court heard both sides on E.A.No.188 of 2022 in E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016. In such circumstances, we find no reason to sustain Ext.P4 and P5 orders of the execution court, i.e., the Principal Munsiff Court-II, Kozhikode.

¶35

In the result, this original petition is disposed of by setting aside Exts.P4 and P5 orders of the Principal Munsiff Court-II, Kozhikode. Consequently, E.A.No.188 of 2022 and E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016 are restored to file. The Principal Munsiff Court-II, Kozhikode, is directed to pass fresh orders on

¶36

¶37

O.P.(RC)NO.101 OF 2022

¶38

E.A.No.188 of 2022 and E.P.No.36 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.109 of 2016, with notice to both sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶39

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶40

Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶41

¶42

¶43

O.P.(RC)NO.101 OF 2022

¶44

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 101/2022

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R C R 63/2022
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 06.04.2022
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED FOR
PRODUCING THE AGREEMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E A 188/2022
IN E P 36/2022 IN RCP 109/2016 DT
5/4/22
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E P 36/2022
IN RCP 109/2016 DT 5/4/22

¶47

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Sudheedharan v. Musthafa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheedharan v. Musthafa

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

P. C.Unnikrishnan Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Pakkayil Ibrahim Vs Nafeesa @ Nabeesa

C. M. Purushothaman Nair Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Usha Bai Vs Pandikasala Niyas

Fasaluddin K.S. Vs Shakeer

Abdul Kareem Sait Vs Asif Ali