Dismissed

Mannisseri Abdul Rasheed v. N.T. Fathima Suhara

Kerala HC12 Aug 2022RCRev./106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed tenants' revisions against eviction orders. Upholding lower courts' findings, the court held that the landlord bona fide needed premises for a business and that tenants failed to prove livelihood dependence or sublease. An eviction order was affirmed with conditions granting six months for vacancy.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order affirmed; 6 months time granted for surrender of possession subject to conditions.

Mannisseri Abdul Rasheed Vs N.T. Fathima Suhara — Landlord and Tenant | 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 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944 R.C.REV.NO. 105 OF 2022

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2021 IN R.C.A.NO.1 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III), MANJERI AND THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2017 IN R.C.P.NO.19 OF 2013 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF),

¶8

MANJERI

¶9

REVISION PETITIONERS:

¶10

1 M.T.MUHAMMED AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, MANNETHODY HOUSE, PULPETTA (P.O), PULPETTA AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673642.

¶11

2 M.T.HAMZA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, MANNETHODY HOUSE, PULPETTA (P.O), PULPETTA AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673642.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ JAHANA SHERIN.K

¶14

RESPONDENT:

¶15

N.T. FATHIMA SUHARA,

¶16

AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. NOTTITHODI ABDULLAKUTTY HAJI, NOTTITHODI HOUSE, MANJERI AMSOM DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676122.

¶17

¶18

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶19

BY ADVS. DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN K.A.ABHILASH VINOD S. PILLAI MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. NAYANA VARGHESE K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL) AHAMMAD SACHIN K.

¶20

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 26.07.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.108/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 12.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶27

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944

¶28

R.C.REV. NO. 106 OF 2022

¶29

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2021 IN R.C.A.NO.2 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III), MANJERI AND THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2017 IN R.C.P.NO.2 OF 2013 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI

¶30

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶31

MANNISSERI ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, KAVANOOR AMSOM, CHENGARA DESOM, KAVANOOR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 673641.

¶32

BY ADVS.

¶33

P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ JAHANA SHERIN.K

¶34

RESPONDENT:

¶35

N.T.FATHIMA SUHARA

¶36

AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. NOTTITHODI ABDULLAKUTTY HAJI, NOTTITHODI HOUSE, MANJERI AMSOM DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676122.

¶37

BY ADV DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶38

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.105 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 12.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶44

¶45

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶46

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944 R.C.REV.NO. 107 OF 2022

¶47

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2021 IN R.C.A.NO.3 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III), MANJERI AND THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2017 IN R.C.P.NO.18 OF 2013 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI

¶48

REVISION PETITIONERS:

¶49

1 K.P.MUHAMMEDKUTTY

¶50

AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. MOITHUTTY, KATTACHIRAKKAL HOUSE, MANJERI AMSOM DESOM, NEAR N.S.S. COLLEGE, MANJERI (P.O), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676122.

¶51

2 K.MUSTHAFA, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MOITHUTTY, KATTACHIRAKKAL HOUSE, CHARANI, KARUVAMBARAM, AMSOM, KARUVAMBARAM (P.O), MANJERI, PIN – 676122.

¶52

BY ADVS.

¶53

P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ JAHANA SHERIN.K

¶54

¶55

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶56

RESPONDENT:

¶57

N.T. FATHIMA SUHARA,

¶58

AGED 62 YEARS, D/O. NOTTITHODI ABDULLAKUTTY HAJI, NOTTITHODI HOUSE, MANJERI AMSOM DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676122.

¶59

BY ADV DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶60

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.105/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 12.08.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶61

¶62

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶64

PRESENT

¶65

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶66

¶67

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶68

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944 R.C.REV. NO. 108 OF 2022

¶69

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2021 IN R.C.A.NO.34 OF 2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-III), MANJERI AND THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2017 IN R.C.P.NO.3 OF 2013 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), MANJERI

¶70

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶71

K.ABBAS, SHAMEEM FOOT WARE, PROP. JAVSA BAZAR, COURT ROAD, MANJERI P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676122.

¶72

BY ADVS.

¶73

P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ K.P.MOHAMAD SHAREEF JAHANA SHERIN.K

¶74

RESPONDENTS:

¶75

1 N.T. FATHIMA SUHARA

¶76

AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. NOTTITHODI ABDULLAKUTTY HAJI, NOTTITHODI HOUSE, MANJERI AMSOM DESOM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676122.

¶77

¶78

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶79

2 N.T.ABDURAHIMAN, N.T.A. FOOTPALACE, CENTRAL BAZAR, COURT ROAD, MANJERI P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676122. BY ADV DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶80

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.105/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 12.08.2022 DELIVERED

¶81

THE FOLLOWING:

¶82

¶83

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶84

O R D E R

¶85

Ajithkumar, J.

¶86

These revision petitions were filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 by the tenants. The respondent is the landlady. She has seven rooms in a row building. There are six tenants. The respondent filed R.C.P.Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 18 and 19 of 2013 before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Manjeri, seeking eviction of the tenants. All the Rent Control Petitions were allowed. The tenant in R.C.P.No.1 of 2013 filed R.C.A.No.33 of 2018 under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-III), Manjeri. As he died and his legal representatives surrendered the tenanted premises, that appeal was closed. The other tenants also filed appeals. All the appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Authority as per a common judgment dated 31.08.2021. The tenant in R.C.P.No.4 of 2013, whose appeal, R.C.A.No.40 of 2017, was dismissed did not prefer any revision. Following are the details of the

¶87

¶88

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶89

revision petitions that are considered:-

¶90

R.C.P.No.	R.C.A.No.	R.C.Rev.No.	Business of the tenants
2 of 2013	2 of 2018	106 of 2022	Vegetable business
3 of 2013	34 of 2017	108 of 2022	Footware business
18 of 2013	3 of 2018	107 of 2022	Mobile phone business
19 of 2013	1 of 2018	105 of 2022	Footware business

¶91

On 30.06.2022, notice was ordered to be served on the respondent. Delivery of the petition schedule shop rooms was deferred for a period of two weeks. The interim order was later extended for three more weeks.

¶92

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶93

The respondent-landlady claimed eviction of the petitioners in R.C.Rev.Nos.105 and 107 of 2022 on the ground of bona fide need and sublease. Eviction of the petitioners in R.C.Rev.Nos.106 and 108 of 2022 was sought on the ground of bona fide need alone. The need urged is that the husband

¶94

of the respondent wants to start a business in home

¶95

¶96

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶97

appliances. He proposed to convert all the seven shop rooms into a common hall by demolishing the separating walls for starting the business. It is alleged that the respective 1^st petitioners in R.C.Rev.Nos.105 and 107 of 2022 sublet the shop rooms let out to them to the respective 2^nd petitioners. Despite sending a notice, the sublease was not terminated. On the said grounds, eviction was sought.

¶98

The petitioners filed counter resisting the plea for eviction. None of them contended that the respondent-landlady has any other building suitable for the accommodation of the proposed business. But their contention is that husband of the respondent has no intention to start the business and he does not want to conduct any such business. It is further contended that the building in question is about 50 years old and located near a market. The building does not have enough strength to be renovated as proposed by the respondent. Its location is not at all suitable for starting a business in home appliances. There is no parking space anywhere near and for that reason also the building is not suitable for the need projected by the petitioner.

¶99

¶100

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶101

In the joint counter filed by the petitioners in R.C.Rev.No.105 of 2022, they further contended that there is no sublease. The respondents have been conducting business as partners. In the joint counter filed by the petitioners in R.C.Rev.No.107 of 2022 they maintain that they, being brothers, have been conducting the business in partnership. Thus the petitioners raised the contention that the respondent is not entitled to get eviction on any of the grounds.

¶102

In the joint trial, the power of attorney of the respondent was examined as PW1. He is the husband of the respondent. Exts.A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the respondent. RWs.1 to 4 were examined on the side of the tenants. After considering the said evidence, the Rent Control Court found both the grounds in favour of the respondent and accordingly ordered eviction.

¶103

Before the Appellate Authority, the order of eviction was seriously challenged. The Appellate Authority reappreciated the evidence in detail and did not choose to interfere with the findings of the Rent Control Court. The

¶104

¶105

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶106

petitioners have now challenge the said concurrent findings in these revision petitions.

¶107

In Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani

¶108

Sulochana [(1993) 1 SCC 499] , the scope of revisional powers of the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 came up for consideration before the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court. While considering whether the High Court could have re-appreciated entire evidence, the Apex Court held that, even the wider language of Section 20 of the Act cannot enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. Otherwise, the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction will get obliterated. Hence, the High Court was not right in re-appreciating the entire evidence both oral or documentary in the light of the Commissioner's report. The High Court had travelled far beyond the revisional jurisdiction. Even by the presence of the word ‘propriety’ it cannot mean that there could be a re-appreciation of evidence. Of course, the revisional court can come to a

¶109

13 R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶110

different conclusion but not on a re-appreciation of evidence; on the contrary, by confining itself to legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it.

¶111

In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78] a Five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court considered the revisional powers of the High Court under Rent Acts operating in different States. After referring to the law laid down in Rukmini Amma Saradamma the Apex Court reiterated that even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 does not enable the High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal. The Constitution Bench agreed with the view of the Three-Judge Bench in Rukmini Amma Saradamma that the word ‘propriety’ does not confer power upon the High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its consideration of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propriety of the order impugned before it.

¶112

In Thankamony Amma v. Omana Amma [AIR

¶113

¶114

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶115

2019 SC 3803 : 2019 (4) KHC 412] after considering the matter in the backdrop of law laid down in Rukmini Amma Saradamma , Ubaiba and Dilbahar Singh (supra) the Apex Court held that when the findings rendered by the courts below were well supported by evidence on record and could not be said to be perverse in any way, the High Court could not re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the concurrent findings by the courts below while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

¶116

In the light of the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the scope of interference with the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below is very limited. Only if the petitioners are able to substantiate that there occurred illegality, irregularity or impropriety resulting from a perverse appreciation of evidence or application of law, this Court would be able to interfere with the said findings.

¶117

PW1, the husband of the respondent-landlady deposed in the court his desire to start a business in home

¶118

15 R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶119

appliances. He now remains jobless. It is his version that the petition schedule building is situated in a busy area in the city and therefore he can profitably conduct such a business. He proposes to remove the separating walls in between the rooms and after carrying out necessary renovation and modification and start the business. The petitioners would contend that the building is very old and cannot withstand renovation by the removal of the separating walls. Ext.C1, report of the Commissioner, is available on record. It is seen that the building was constructed with concrete pillars and roof. Of course, it is reported to be an old one, having cracks and leak in the roof. But considering the nature of the construction, it cannot be said that the same cannot be renovated by removing the separating walls. It is highlighted that PW1 himself ruled out possibility of constructing an upper floor for want of sufficient strength to the existing structure and it shows that the building cannot be modified as the respondent proposes. Anyway it is for the landlord to decide what kind of modification and renovation is to be carried out.

¶120

¶121

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶122

When, PW1 deposes that the building can be modified to suit his purpose, the tenants cannot be heard to contend that the buildings is not strong enough to allow such modification. The petitioners are conveniently conducting the business in the building. In such circumstances, there need not be any doubt as to the fact that the building can be modified and utilised for the need projected by the respondent.

¶123

PW1 admitted that a market is functioning nearby.

¶124

The petitioners are conducting businesses in vegetable, mobile phone, footwear, etc. in the respective shop rooms in their occupation. Despite the proximity of a market, the conduct of a business in home appliances is proposed to be started by the husband of the respondent. When PW1 deposes that such a business can profitably be conducted in that building, the bona fides of the said version need not be doubted for, it is he who puts in efforts and money to start such a business. Therefore, the option whether or not to conduct such a business in the building in question has to be left to him and the tenants cannot have any say in that matter.

¶125

¶126

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶127

Admittedly, the building is situated in a busy area of the city. Lack of parking facility in the immediate vicinity may not be a factor disabling PW1 to start such a business. Again, it is a matter of wisdom of the landlord and not of the tenants.

¶128

Section 11 of the Act deals with eviction of tenants. As per Section 11(1), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per Section 11(3) of the Act, a landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court, for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him. As per the first proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special

¶129

18 R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶130

reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so. As per the second proviso to Section 11(3), the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business.

¶131

In Adil Jamshed Frenchman v. Sardur Dastur Schools Trust [(2005) 2 SCC 476] the Apex Court reiterated that, as laid down in Shiv Samp Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given

¶132

19 R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶133

facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. As reiterated in Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705] bona fide requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. The bona fide requirement is in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.

¶134

In Ammu v. Nafeesa [2015 (5) KHC 718] a Division Bench of this Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that the need put forward by the landlord has to be examined on the presumption that the same is a genuine one, in the absence of any materials to the contra . In Gireeshbabu T. P. v. Jameela and others [2021 (5) KHC

¶135

SN 30] this Court reiterated that in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 11(3) of the Act, a bona fide need must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire of the

¶136

¶137

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶138

landlord in contradistinction with a mere pretext on the part of the landlord for evicting the tenant, claiming to occupy the

¶139

premises for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. Once, on the basis of the materials on record, the landlord has succeeded in showing that the need to occupy the premises is natural, real, sincere and honest, and not a ruse to evict the tenant from the said premises, the landlord will certainly be entitled for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act, of course, subject to the first and second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶140

Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it cannot be said that the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below that the need urged by the respondent was bona fide, is perverse or illegal. Therefore, we do not propose to interfere with the said finding.

¶141

The petitioners claimed benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. RW1 is the petitionertenant in R.C.Rev.No.106 of 2022. RW2 is the 2^nd petitioner,

¶142

21 R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶143

who is one among the legal representatives of the original tenant in R.C.Rev.No.108 of 2022. RW3 is the respondent in R.C.P.No.4 of 2002, who did not come for this Court to challenge the order of eviction passed against him. RW4 is the 2^nd petitioner in R.C.Rev.No.105 of 2022. RW4 is allegedly the sub-tenant. Therefore, the evidence of RW4 cannot be reckoned with while deciding the plea under the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The oral testimonies of RWs.1 and 2 alone are therefore available to substantiate the said plea of the petitioners. Their oral testimonies are not supported by any document. The sufficiency of oral evidence of RWs 1 to 4 was considered by the courts below to find whether they are depending for their livelihood solely on the income derived from their business in the respective tenanted premises. The definite finding of the courts below is that the said evidence was insufficient to prove that fact. None of the petitioners venture to bring on record any evidence with respect to non-availability of other buildings in the locality. In the light of the said evidence, it cannot be said that the

¶144

22 R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶145

findings entered by the courts below that none of the petitioners is entitled to get the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act is neither perverse nor incorrect.

¶146

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in R.C.Rev.Nos.105 and 107 of 2022 would contend that the respective 1^st petitioners had availed the schedule shop rooms on rent and the business is being run by partnership firms. They thus contended that there is no sublease. While RW4, the 2^nd petitioner in R.C.Rev.No.105 of 2022 deposed before the court that he along with his brother, the 1^st petitioner has been conducting the business in partnership. No other evidence to prove that fact has been let in. A mere statement that there is a partnership firm and the tenant, who availed the schedule shop room is a partner of the firm does not take the place of evidence to prove such a fact. The claim is a selfserving one. The oral testimony of RW4 unsupported by any other material is insufficient to prove existence of a partnership firm. The petitioners in R.C.Rev.No.107 of 2022 did not opt to adduce any evidence to prove existence of a

¶147

23 R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶148

partnership. In the said circumstances, the findings of the courts below that the respondent is entitled to get an order of eviction of the petitioners in R.C.Rev.Nos.105 and 107 of 2022 on the ground of sublease also is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.

¶149

Accordingly, we hold that the order of eviction concurrently rendered by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court, which are under challenge in these revision petitions, are not liable to be interfered with on the ground of illegality, irregularity or impropriety. Hence, these revisions fail. Accordingly, these revisions petitions are dismissed.

¶150

At the time of pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has made a request to afford eight months' time for vacating the premises pointing out the difficulty in finding out another room and making necessary arrangements for shifting their business. The learned counsel for the respondent is agreeable to grant six months’ time.

¶151

¶152

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶153

Having considered all the aspects, we deem it appropriate to grant six months’ time to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms, subject to the following conditions:

¶154

(i) The respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petitions shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms to the petitioner-landlady within six months from the date of this order and that, they shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition schedule shop rooms and further they shall conduct any business in the petition schedule shop rooms only on the strength of a valid licence/permission/ consent issued by the local authority/statutory authorities;

¶155

(ii) The respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petitions shall deposit the entire arrears of rent as on date, if any, before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and shall continue to pay rent for every succeeding months, without any default;

¶156

¶157

R.C.Rev.Nos.105, 106, 107 & 108 of 2022

¶158

(iii) Needless to say, in the event of the respondents-tenants in the Rent Control Petitions failing to comply with any one of the conditions stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender vacant possession of the petition schedule shop rooms will stand cancelled automatically and the petitioner-landlady will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.

¶159

Sd/- -

¶160

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶161

Sd/-

¶162

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶163

dkr

Mannisseri Abdul Rasheed v. N.T. Fathima Suhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannisseri Abdul Rasheed v. N.T. Fathima Suhara

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

T.Raghu Prasad Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs T. Reghuprasad

Saramma Joseph Vs Sajan Varghese

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

M.T.Muhammed Vs N.T. Fathima Suhara

K.Abbas Vs N.T. Fathima Suhara