Dismissed

Meyana Sheeja v. Eroth Thazha Kuniyil Nabeesu

Kerala HC14 Sept 2022RCRev./159/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala examined a rent control revision regarding eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. It was found that the tenant failed to prove the landlady possessed other suitable buildings. The revision failed but a limited time was granted to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Time granted until 31.12.2022 to vacate the building upon filing an undertaking with the Rent Control Court and clearing rent arrears.

Meyana Sheeja Vs Eroth Thazha Kuniyil Nabeesu — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 23RD BHADRA, 1944

¶7

RCREV. NO. 159 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 191/2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

¶9

SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA

¶10

RCP 63/2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA

¶11

REVISION PETITIONER:

¶12

MEYANA SHEEJA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.NANU, OTHAYOTH POYIL HOUSE, ERAMALA AMSOM, ORKKATTERI DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 106.

¶13

BY ADVS. U.K.DEVIDAS K.K.ANILRAJ

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 EROTH THAZHA KUNIYIL NABEESU, AGED 55 YEARS, D/O.ALIKUTTY, ERAMALA AMSOM AND ORAKKATTERI DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 106.

¶16

2 EROTH THAZHA KUNIYIL FOUSIYA, AGED 51 YEARS D/O.ALIKUTTY, ERAMALA AMSOM AND ORKKATTERI DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIIKODE DISTRICT - 673 106.

¶17

3 KURUNNANTAVIDA SEKHARAN, S/O.KANNAN, CURTAIN CENTER, E.P.-16-456, NUMBER SHOP, ORKATERI P.O., EDACHERI AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 106.

¶18

BY ADVS. T. SETHUMADHAVAN Sr. P.V. PREETHI (CAVEATOR) M.V. BALAGOPAL (CAVEATOR)

¶19

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

..2..

¶21

RCREV. NO. 159 OF 2022

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶24

This revision calls for a decision on a narrow compass. In earlier round of litigation before this Court, this Court affirmed the finding under Section 11(3) as well as second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short Act). However, this Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration on point arising under first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. The first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act reads as follows:

¶25

“Provided that the Rent Control 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 reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so”

¶26

The case was remanded to the Appellate Court.

¶27

The revision petitioner produced Exts.B1 to B3 to point out that the landlady possess other buildings which is suitable for occupation. There was also an attempt on the part of the revision petitioner to prove that another room

¶28

RCREV. NO. 159 OF 2022

¶29

owned by the landlady became vacant subsequent to the remand. According to the tenant, the building bearing No.15/299 of the same locality fell vacant consequent upon the death of the tenant. It is further contended that the legal heirs of the tenant surrendered the vacant possession of that building to the landlady.

¶30

The Appellate Court noted that no steps were taken by the tenant to prove that the building covered by Exts.B1 to B3 were lying vacant and suitable for the requirement of the landlady. It appears that the tenant was harping on a point that though room No.15/299 which fell vacant subsequent to the death of the tenant is surrendered to the landlady. Though the Appellate Court was not inclined to consider the objection raised by the tenant noting that this aspect is beyond the scope of the remand, nevertheless, it is considered and noted that no documents were produced to show that the legal heirs have surrendered the building bearing No.15/299 to the landlady. According to the land lady, the legal heirs did not surrender the building bearing No.15/299.

¶31

The scope of the remand was limited to find out

¶32

..4..

¶33

RCREV. NO. 159 OF 2022

¶34

the application of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. If the landlady or land lord was in possession of any suitable building at the time of filing petition under Section 11(3) of the Act, the Rent Control Court can very well decline the relief of eviction.

¶35

In this case, even after the remand, the tenant

¶36

failed to prove that the landlady was in the possession of suitable building for her occupation for the need projected in the petition for eviction. The tenant also failed to prove that subsequent to the remand, building bearing No.15/299 was surrendered to the landlady. In such circumstances, there is no error in the impugned judgment warranting invocation of revisional power of this Court. Hence, the revision petition fails.

¶37

Taking note of the fervent plea made by the

¶38

learned counsel for the tenant, we grant time upto 31.12.2022 to vacate the building on the following conditions:

¶39

(i) The tenant shall file an undertaking that he

¶40

will vacate the building on or before 31.12.2022, before the Rent Control Court within two weeks from today.

¶41

RCREV. NO. 159 OF 2022

¶42

(ii) The tenant shall clear the entire arrears of

¶43

rent and continues to pay the rent till 31.12.2022. If

¶44

there is arrears, it shall be cleared within one month from today.

¶45

The Rent Control Revision is dismissed as above. No

¶46

order as to costs.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS

JUDGE

Meyana Sheeja v. Eroth Thazha Kuniyil Nabeesu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meyana Sheeja v. Eroth Thazha Kuniyil Nabeesu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nimson Joseph Antony Vs Mary Robert

Prafulraj Vs Renju.P.Kuttan

John Cherian Vs a Suresh Kumar

Dr.Jaya Sivadavamani Vs Dr.Vijayakumar

Lekha P.Chandran Vs the District Police Superintendent

Remya M. K. Vs Mahesh T.