Disposed

E.C.Jose v. 1. v.Gopalakrishnan

Kerala HC13 Dec 2022OP (RC)/222/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Petition, the High Court addressed the scope of ordering rent payment at the appellate stage when title is contested. It directed the tenant to deposit admitted arrears to contest the appeal while preserving title challenges, and fixed a disposal limit for the appellate court.

What did the court decide?

Directed tenant to deposit admitted arrears within six weeks; appellate court to dispose of the case before 31.03.2023.

E.C.Jose Vs 1. v.Gopalakrishnan — 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 SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA,

¶6

1944

¶7

OP (RC) NO. 222 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2022 IN IA 3319/2019 IN RCA NO.158/2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THRISSUR / III ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR

¶9

PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL:

¶10

E.C.JOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. EMMATTY CHERIAN, 11/218, PUTHURKKARA, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 003.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN JISSMON A KURIAKOSE SANAL C.S SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE APPEAL:

¶14

1 V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VADAKOOTT MALATHI AMMA, UMALAYAM, PUTHURKKARA, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 003

¶15

2 SIVADAS, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. VADAKOOTT MALATHI AMMA, UMALAYAM, PUTHURKKARA, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 003.

¶16

3 USHAKUMARI, AGED 60 YEARS, D/O. VADAKOOTT MALATHI AMMA, UMALAYAM, PUTHURKKARA, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 003

¶17

BY ADVS.

¶18

R.PARTHASARATHY

¶19

OP (RC) NO. 222 OF 2022

¶20

..2..

¶21

SEEMA(K/893/2000)

¶22

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

..3..

¶24

OP (RC) NO. 222 OF 2022

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶27

The scope of passing an order under Section

¶28

12(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short “Act”) at the

¶29

appellate stage is the question to be considered in the original petition filed under Article 227

¶30

of the Constitution of India. The tenant is

¶31

before us. According to him, when there is a denial of title of the landlord in derogation of that claim, the Appellate Court could not have ordered payment of rent invoking Section 12(1) of the Act. It is submitted that such order of the Appellate Court would cause prejudice to the

¶32

contention raised in the appeal that the landlord has no title.

¶33

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶34

landlord would submit that a finding has been already rendered by the Rent Controller by

¶35

OP (RC) NO. 222 OF 2022

¶36

..4..

¶37

overruling the objections of the tenant in regard to title. Therefore, as a condition precedent to contest an appeal preferred under Section 18 of the Act, the tenant is bound to deposit the admitted arrears.

¶38

The Court, while passing an order under

¶39

Section 12(1) of the Act at the Appellate stage, cannot ignore the contentions put forward in the appeal by the appellant-tenant. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the landlord, in order to contest an appeal, the admitted arrears of rent will have to be deposited by the tenant. However, we cannot also ignore the challenge made by the tenant before

¶40

the Appellate Authority. In order to safeguard the interest of the tenant, we order that without prejudice to his contentions in the appeal, the tenant shall deposit entire amount ordered to be deposited in the impugned order within six weeks from today. The landlord shall not withdraw the

¶41

OP (RC) NO. 222 OF 2022

¶42

amount without the final order being passed in

¶43

this matter by the Appellate Court. The

¶44

Appellate Court is also directed to dispose of the case before 31.03.2023.

¶45

petitioner-tenant fails to deposit the amount within the time as above, the Appellate Court is free to pass order under Section 12(3) of the Act.

¶46

This original petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

¶54

OP (RC) NO. 222 OF 2022

¶55

..6..

¶56

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 222/2022

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit-P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RC(OP)NO. 120/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT , THRISSUR DATED 20-8-2016
Exhibit-P2	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER IN EXT.P1 DATED 10-9-2018
Exhibit-P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-5-2019 IN RCP NO.120/2016 OF THE RENT CONTROLLER, TRISSUR
Exhibit-P4	TRUE COPY OF RCA NO.158/2019 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , TRISSUR DATED 13-8-2019
Exhibit-P5	TRUE COPY OF IA 3319/2019 IN RCA NO.158/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY , TRISSUR
Exhibit-P6	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P5 BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P7	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26-10-2022 IN IA NO.3319/2019 IN RCA NO.158/2019 OF THE IVTH ADDL. RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR

E.C.Jose v. 1. v.Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.C.Jose v. 1. v.Gopalakrishnan

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

Union of India, Vs M.Shaik Muhammed

The Superintendent of Post Offices Vs M.Shaik Muhammed

M.J.Samuel, Vs Lijo Peter George

Ajesh.v.Baby Vs Lisamma Mohan

Ressy James Vs Jinsi George

Vijayalakshmi Vs Sundaran