Disposed

Kunhimoonte Purakkal Manaf v. Cheriya Madathil Beena

Kerala HC16 Sept 2022OP (RC)/151/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rent control order claiming licensee status denied jurisdiction. Court directed release of deposited arrears to respondent, allowing adjustment against future rent, and remanded maintainability objection to Rent Control Court for disposition within two months without delay on this issue.

What did the court decide?

Directed release of deposited arrears to respondent for adjustment; remanded maintainability objection to Rent Control Court for decision within two months.

Kunhimoonte Purakkal Manaf Vs Cheriya Madathil Beena — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 25TH BHADRA, 1944

¶7

OP (RC) NO. 151 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 16/2020 OF MUNSIFF

¶9

COURT ,PARAPPANANGADI

¶10

PETITIONER:

¶11

KUNHIMOONTE PURAKKAL MANAF, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O KUNHIMUHAMMED HAJI, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676 302

¶12

BY ADVS. JAMSHEED HAFIZ K.K.NESNA

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

CHERIYA MADATHIL BEENA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O CHANDRASEKHARAN RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676 302

¶15

BY ADVS. Nirmal S VEENA HARI(K/775/2006) RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH(K/618/2019) IRENE ELZA SOJI(K/1630/2018) K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN(K/001481/2018) VARUN MURALEEDHARAN(K/001046/2022)

¶16

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

..2..

¶18

OP (RC) NO. 151 OF 2022

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶21

This original petition is filed at the instance of the respondent in RCP No.16 of 2020 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munisiff Court), Parappanangadi. He approached this court aggrieved by an order passed under Section 12 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. According to him, he is not a tenant as defined under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. However, he stated that he is only a licensee as per a contract and therefore, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction. It is further submitted that without considering the nature of relationship, the Rent Control Court ought not have ordered the payment of arrears of rent as claimed by the petitioner therein.

¶22

It is also submitted before us that he has

¶23

deposited the entire arrears of rent. It is further submitted that that arrears shall not be released to the

¶24

..3..

¶25

OP (RC) NO. 151 OF 2022

¶26

petitioner without adjudicating the maintainability of the petition.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner admitted that he is the tenant in reply notice and therefore he is estopped from raising the contention that he is not a tenant. It is further submitted that more than Rs.3 Lakhs is due from the petitioner.

¶29

Admittedly, the Rent Control Court had not taken a decision on the objection raised by the tenant. The Rent Control Court shall decide whether the question of maintainability can be decided at threshold or not after adverting to the pleadings and documents produced. In view of the fact that he has deposited the entire arrears as claimed in Ext.P2 application, there is no necessity to proceed further with Ext.P4 order. We cannot remain oblivious to the contractual obligation of the petitioner. We are of the view that the amount now deposited before

¶30

the Rent Control Court be released to the respondent and

¶31

OP (RC) NO. 151 OF 2022

¶32

..4..

¶33

this can be adjusted against the rent payable by him.

¶34

The Rent Control Court, untrammeled by any

¶35

findings in the impugned order passed under Section 12 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, shall take a decision on the objection raised in regard to the maintainability of the petition within a period of two months. It is open for the Rent Control Court to dispose

¶36

the Rent Control Petition itself within the above period.

¶37

This original petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS

JUDGE

..5..

OP (RC) NO. 151 OF 2022

¶47

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 151/2022

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RCP. NO. 16/2020 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT ( MUNSIFF) PARAPPANANGADI DATED 23.1.2020 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 2/2021 IN RCP. NO. 16/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT ( MUNSIFF ) PARAPPANANGADI DATED 15.02.2021 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER /TENANT IN I.A.NO. 2/2021 IN RCP. NO. 16/2020 BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT ( MUNSIFF ) PARAPPANANGADI DATED 23.02.2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2/2021 IN RCP NO. 16/2020 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF) PARAPPANANGADI DATED 08.11.2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RCA NO. 01/2021 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY ( DISTRICT COURT ) MANJERI DATED 18.02.2022

Kunhimoonte Purakkal Manaf v. Cheriya Madathil Beena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhimoonte Purakkal Manaf v. Cheriya Madathil Beena

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

Meyana Sheeja Vs Eroth Thazha Kuniyil Nabeesu

Dr.Jaya Sivadavamani Vs Dr.Vijayakumar

Nimson Joseph Antony Vs Mary Robert

Lekha P.Chandran Vs the District Police Superintendent

Remya M. K. Vs Mahesh T.

Sabina Vs Anvarudeen