Dismissed

K. K. Ali v. Renny Joseph

Kerala HC15 Jun 2022OP (RC)/118/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 filed to direct the subordinates Rent Control Court to defer an interim application. The Court found no grave injustice or flagrant violation of law warranting intervention, noting the petitioner had not been denied an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition seeking direction to defer interim orders was dismissed.

K. K. Ali Vs Renny Joseph — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶7

OP (RC) NO. 118 OF 2022

¶8

PROCEEDINGS IN RCP 4/2021 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,ALUVA

¶9

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN RCP:

¶10

K. K. ALI AGED 60 YEARS S/O KUNJEEN PILLA KODIYAMATTOM HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA CHOORNIKKARA VILLAGE, ALUVA. NOWRESIDING AT BISMI HOTEL, KADATHUKULAM BUILDING, OPP. AISHWARYA NAGAR NEAR KSRTC GARAGE, ALUVA, PIN - 683101

¶11

BY ADVS. KURIAN ANTONY EDASSERY BOSE K.THACHIL ANN EMIL JOSEPH

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN RCP:

¶13

RENNY JOSEPH AGED 53 YEARS W/O JOSEPH, KADATHUKULAM HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA CHOORNIKKARA VILLAGE, ALUVA, PIN - 683101

¶14

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 15.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

O.P.(RC)No.118/2022

¶17

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.

¶18

--------------------------------------------------

¶19

O.P.(RC)No.118/2022

¶20

------------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2022

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

C.S.Sudha, J.

¶23

The petitioner, in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, is the respondent in R.C.P.No.4/2021 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Aluva. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the said R.C.P., filed under Section 11(2) (b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act).

¶24

The respondent herein in the said R.C.P. filed I.A.No.4/2022,

¶25

a petition under Section 12 of the Act claiming admitted arrears of rent. According to the petitioner herein, “since there was no admitted arrears on the part of the respondent, an order was passed by the Rent Control Court for part-payment of the arrears and the petition is posted for orders to

¶26

15/06/2022 ”. The respondent had earlier filed R.C.P.No.11/2019 against the

¶27

¶28

O.P.(RC)No.118/2022

¶29

petitioner for eviction of the tenanted premises under Section 11(2)(b). The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequent to the dismissal of the said R.C.P., the respondent on 15/02/2021 filed R.C.P.No.4/2021 under Section 11(2)(b) concealing the dismissal of the earlier R.C.P. It is also alleged that there is non-compliance of the provisions of Section 27 read with Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 (the Rules). The petitioner herein therefore filed I.A.No.05/2022 seeking summary rejection of the R.C.P. on the ground that the same is not maintainable in the light of Section 15 of the Act. He also filed I.A.No.06/2022 seeking to defer the passing of orders in I.A.No.04/2022 till the disposal of I.A.Nos.05/2022 and 06/2022 by the court below. The petitioner apprehends that the court below may pass orders in I.A.No.04/2022 without considering the petitions moved by him. He would be put to great hardship and legal injury in the event the court below passes an order in I.A.No.04/2022 without adjudicating the petitions filed by him challenging the maintainability of the R.C.P. Hence the present petition

¶30

¶31

O.P.(RC)No.118/2022

¶32

seeking an order directing the Rent Control Court, Aluva to defer passing orders in I.A.No.04/2022 till the adjudication and disposal of I.A.Nos.05/2022 and 06/2022 in R.C.P.No.04/2021.

¶33

Heard Sri.Kurian Antony Edassery, the learned counsel

¶34

for the petitioner.

¶35

The High Court, in exercise of its power under Art.227,

¶36

should interfere with an order, only to keep the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it within the bounds of their authority and to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principles. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases, but should be directed for promotion of public confidence

¶37

¶38

O.P.(RC)No.118/2022

¶39

in the administration in the larger public interest. Therefore, though the power under Art.227 may be unfettered, its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The power of interference under Art.227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court ( Radhey Shyam vs. Chhabi Nath , 2015 KHC 4152 ). Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution to interfere ( Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim, 2017(4) KHC 113 ).

¶40

In the case on hand, no such case of grave injustice or flagrant violation of law, calling for intervention by this court has been made out. The petitioner only says that he apprehends that the court below may pass orders in I.A.No.04/2022 without considering the petitions moved by him. He has no case that he has not been heard on the petitions filed by him or

¶41

¶42

O.P.(RC)No.118/2022

¶43

that the court below refused to consider his applications. That being the

¶44

position, we find no merit in the petition.

¶45

Hence, this original petition is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.SUDHA

JUDGE

ami/

O.P.(RC)No.118/2022

¶54

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 118/2022

¶55

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶56

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RCP 4/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RCP 11/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA IN RCP 11/2019 DATED 04/11/2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 5/2022 IN (RCP 4/2021 BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA) Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF IA NO.6/2022 DATED 13/06/2022 BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ALUVA

K. K. Ali v. Renny Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. K. Ali v. Renny Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valiyaapeediyekal Hirshan Vs Muhemmed Sadique

Surya Sugunan Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology - Cusat

A L Soman Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

M/S.C.S.Company Vs K.S.E.B

M/S.C.S.Company Vs the K.S.E.Board

State of Kerala Vs Bushara.M