Dismissed

Ajayakumar, v. Muhammed Pathummal Nabeesa Beevi

Kerala HC24 Nov 2022OP (RC)/41/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Execution Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application to enlarge time for deposit of rent arrears under Section 11(2)(c) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court alone possesses this power. Consequently, the Original Petition filed by the tenant challenging the Appellate Authority's order was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ajayakumar, Vs Muhammed Pathummal Nabeesa Beevi — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1944

¶8

OP (RC) NO. 41 OF 2022

¶9

EP 285/2017 IN RCP 2/2015 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,

¶10

NEYYATTINKARA

¶11

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DECREE DEBTOR

¶12

AJAYAKUMAR,

¶13

AGED 49 YEARS S/O.GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT DEEPA BHAVAN, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 042. BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ SUMEEN S.

¶14

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER

¶15

MUHAMMED PATHUMMAL NABEESA BEEVI, AGED 73 YEARS RESIDING AT JUNAIDA MANDIRAM, NEAR NSS KARAYOGAM, VAZHUTHOOR DESAM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 121. BY ADVS. L.MOHANAN LIGEY ANTONY

¶16

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(RC).41 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.

¶20

OP(RC).41 of 2022 ----------------------Dated : 24^th November, 2022

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶23

An order of eviction was passed under Section 11(2)(a)(b) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for default of payment of rent on 13..3.2017. The tenant can very well set aside that order on deposit of arrears of rent. He has not chosen to do so. The landlord filed Execution Petition. It was numbered as E.P.285 of 2017. While the Execution Petition was pending, the tenant filed an application permitting to deposit the arrears of rent to set aside the order. That was allowed on 2.11.2018 by the Execution Court. Challenging that order, the landlord approached the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the order holding that the Execution Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application to enlarge time for deposit and to direct the landlord to

OP(RC).41 OF 2022

accept rent arrears.

We are now called upon to decide the legality of the order passed by the Appellate Authority by invoking power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Rent Control Court alone has power under Section 11(2)(c) to enlarge time and to set aside the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(a)(b). Execution Court is a Civil Court. Though functions of Rent Controller as well as Civil Court may be vested with the same Officer nevertheless, Execution Court is a Civil Court and it cannot assume the power of Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the tenant would submit that it being a Civil Court, it ought to have treated the application as the one filed under Section 11(2)(c) and there is no difficulty in law converting that application to an application under Section 11 (2) (c).

¶28

We are not impressed with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant for more than one reason. One is that he bypassed the authority of the Rent Controller. Secondly, assuming

¶29

¶30

OP(RC).41 OF 2022

¶31

that the Rent Control Court and Civil Court are presided by the same Officer, the discretionary power under Section 11(2)(c) cannot be extended in such a way to allow a tenant to deposit arrears after the delay of one year from the date of passing an order under Section 11(2)(a) and (b). Even looking from that angle, tenant is not entitled to any relief. If that be so, we find no merit in the Original Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, Judge

Mrcs

OP(RC).41 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 41/2022

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶41

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2017 IN RCP NO.02 OF 2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, NEYYATTINKARA. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2018 IN EA NO.522 OF 2018 IN EP NO.285 OF 2017 IN RCP NO.2 OF 2015. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2021 IN RC (RP) NO.1 OF 2019 IN EA NO.522 O 2018 IN EP NO.285/2017 IN RCP NO.02 O 2015 PASSED BY THE (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF) NEYYATTINKARA. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2022 IN RCR NO.26 OF 2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Ajayakumar, v. Muhammed Pathummal Nabeesa Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ajayakumar, v. Muhammed Pathummal Nabeesa Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pullamby Iqbal Vs Valiyaparambath Rasiyabi

Ulliveettil Ashraf Vs Thavarayil Ummer

M.K.Balachandran Vs the Secretary, Kuthuparamba Municipality

Murali, Vs Shailaja Purushothaman

Caletal Developers Private Ltd.Represented by Managing Director Sri. Akash Anand Vs Joy Joseph Chackalackal

Royis Sebastian Vs Stephy Babu