Dismissed

Abdul Kareem Sait v. Asif Ali

Kerala HC19 Aug 2022OP (RC)/152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landlord-landlords invoked Article 227 supervision to expedite delivery of possession pending in the trial court. Upon reporting that the tenant-respondent had the lease stay lifted by the Supreme Court but was granted six months to vacate voluntarily, the High Court exercised the writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

High Court held no further orders are required on the original petition and closed the matter.

Abdul Kareem Sait Vs Asif Ali — Execution and Attachment | 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

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶7

OP (RC) NO. 152 OF 2022

¶8

FOR THE DELIVERY OF E.P.NO.100 OF 2022 IN R.C.P.NO.75 OF
2019 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶9

PETITIONERS:

¶10

1ABDUL KAREEM SAIT
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. HAJI NOOR MOHAMMED SAIT
42/2260, B5 JEWEL SPARK,
PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
KOCHI, PIN - 682018

¶11

2MOHAMMED JAMAL SAIT
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. HAJI NOOR MOHAMMED SAIT
42/2260, B5 JEWEL SPARK,
PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
KOCHI-18. REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER,
ABDUL KAREEM SAIT, AGED 58,
S/O. HAJI NOOR MOHAMMED SAIT
42/2260, B5 JEWEL SPARK,
PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
KOCHI-682018, PIN - 682018

¶12

3MEMUNA ABDUL KAREEM
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. ABDUL KAREEM SAIT
42/2260, B5 JEWEL SPARK,
PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
KOCHI-18. REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER,
ABDUL KAREEM SAIT, AGED 58,
S/O. HAJI NOOR MOHAMMED SAIT
42/2260, B5 JEWEL SPARK,

¶13

O.P.(RC)No.152 of 2022

¶14

¶15

PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH,
KOCHI-682018, PIN - 682018

¶16

BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
K.S.SREEREKHA
NABIL KHADER
CHITHRA C.EDADAN

¶17

RESPONDENT:

¶18

ASIF ALI
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.MOHAMMED AMIL,
67/10881 AND 10883
GROUND FLOOR, NOOR BUILDING
OPPOSITE HOTEL BLUE DIAMOND
MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM
PIN CODE, PIN - 682018

¶19

BY ADVS.
N.ASHOK KUMAR
JEEMON P.ABRAHAM

¶20

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

¶21

O.P.(RC)No.152 of 2022

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Anil K. Narendran, J .

¶25

The petitioners, who are the decree holders-landlords in E.P.No.100 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.75 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the said court to order delivery of the tenanted premises to them, forthwith.

¶26

On 12.08.2022, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice to the respondent-judgment debtor-tenant. The learned counsel for the petitioners were permitted to take out notice to the respondent through his counsel before the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, where E.P.No.100 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.75 of 2019 is pending consideration. Registry was directed to call for a report from the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam as to the present status of E.P.No.100 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.75 of 2019.

¶27

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a report dated 16.08.2022 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam is placed on record, which reads thus;

¶28

“E.P.No.100 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.75 of 2019 is filed by the

¶29

O.P.(RC)No.152 of 2022

¶30

¶31

decree holders/petitioners 1) Sri.Abdul Kareem Sait 2) Mohammed Jamal Sait and 3) Memuna Abdul Kareem against the judgment debtor/respondent Sri.Asif Ali to enforce the order of eviction dated 23.03.2021 under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

¶32

Pursuant to the appearance of the judgment debtor, after hearing both sides, delivery was ordered to be effected on 29.07.2022. But on 29.07.2022 the judgment debtor filed affidavit stating that they have filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of eviction and the provisional application number is 15591-2022. Hence the delivery was deferred and case adjourned to 30.07.2022. On 30.07.2022 the judgment debtor filed affidavit stating that the diary number of S.L.P. is 23431-2022 dated 29.07.2022 at 2.30 p.m. So the case was adjourned to 04.08.2022. On 04.08.2022 the judgment debtor again filed affidavit stating that the S.L.P. is on process to be taken before the bench in due course and hence the case is to be adjourned. Hence the case was adjourned to 12.08.2022. On 12.08.2022 the judgment debtor filed affidavit stating that the S.L.P. is numbered as 013770/2022 and it is in the process of being taken before the bench in the due course. Hence the case stands posted for production of order, if any, from the Hon’ble Supreme Court to 31.08.2022.

¶33

Therefore, I most humbly submit this report to the Hon’ble High Court for favour of necessary action.”

¶34

Today, when this case is taken up for consideration, the

¶35

learned counsel for the petitioners has made available for the

¶36

O.P.(RC)No.152 of 2022

¶37

¶38

perusal of this Court the order of the Apex Court dated 17.08.2022

¶39

in S.L.P.(C)No.13770 of 2022. The said order reads thus;

¶40

“We are not inclined to entertain the present petition. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present petition, six months’ time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises in occupation on the following conditions;

¶41

(i) The petitioner shall file undertaking before this Court within two weeks from today, to the effect that the petitioner shall not create any third party rights and will voluntarily vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord within the stipulated time and

¶42

(ii) The petitioner shall clear all arears of rent within a period of four weeks.

¶43

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application also stands disposed of.”

¶44

In view of the order of the Apex Court referred to supra, no

¶45

orders are required in this original petition and the same is accordingly closed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR

JUDGE

O.P.(RC)No.152 of 2022

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶56

Exhibit P1THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.C.REV.
NO.127/2022 DATED 18.07.2022 OF THIS
HON'BLE HIGH COURT
Exhibit P2THE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION, E.P
NO.100/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P3THE COPY OF THE E-COURT PROCEEDINGS IN
E.P NO.100/2022 DATED 22.07.2022
Exhibit P4THE COPY OF THE E- COURT PROCEEDINGS IN
E.P NO.100/2022 DATED 29.07.2022
Exhibit P5THE COPY OF THE E-COURT PROCEEDINGS IN
E.P NO.100/2022 DATED 30.07.2022
Exhibit P6THE COPY OF THE E-COURT PROCEEDINGS IN
E.P NO.100/2022 DATED 03.08.2022

¶57

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL

¶58

TRUE COPY

¶59

P.A. TO JUDGE

Abdul Kareem Sait v. Asif Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kareem Sait v. Asif Ali

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

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

Sudheedharan Vs Musthafa