Disposed

Saramma Joseph v. Sajan Varghese

Kerala HC10 Aug 2022RCRev./76/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants sought refund of security deposit before surrendering possession. Landlords agreed to refund Rs.1 lakh. Upon recording mutual submissions regarding exchange of deposit for vacant possession on 15.08.2022, the High Court disposed of the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision disposed upon recording agreement for landlords to refund security deposit and tenants to deliver vacant possession on 15.08.2022.

Saramma Joseph Vs Sajan Varghese — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

R.C.R.No.76 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶7

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶8

RCREV. NO. 76 OF 2022

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.01.2022 IN R.C.A.NO.9 OF 2019 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY II, KOTTAYAM AND THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2019 IN R.C.P.NO.17 OF 2016 ON THE FILES OF THE PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), KOTTAYAM

¶10

REVISION PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 SARAMMA JOSEPH AGED 59 YEARS W/O.LATE C.K. JOSEPH, CHERUMPALA HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM PO, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK-686012

¶12

2 JITHIN JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.K. JOSEPH, CHERUMPALA HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM PO, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK-686012

¶13

3 JOMOL C. JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. SUBIN K.IPE, CHERUMPALA HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM PO, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK-686012

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 SAJAN VARGHESE AGED 68 YEARS

¶17

S/O.VARGHESE, MADHAVASSERIL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM PO, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK-686004

¶18

2 MINI SAJAN, AGED 53 YEARS,

¶19

¶20

R.C.R.No.76 of 2022

¶21

W/O.SAJAN VARGHESE, MADHAVASSERIL HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM PO,MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK- 686004

¶22

BY ADVS. KRISHNA KUMAR J P.V.THOMAS(K/992/1994) LEENU ANANDHAN(K/000682/2016)

¶23

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.C.R.No.76 of 2022

O R D E R

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶28

The petitioners are the respondents–tenants in R.C.P No.17 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Kottayam, a petition filed by the respondents herein–landlords under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule shop room. The Rent Control Court, by the order dated 20.03.2019, allowed R.C.P.No.17 of 2016 and the tenants were directed to give vacant possession of the petition schedule building to the landlord within a time limit stipulated in the said order. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.9 of 2019 before the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority-II, Kottayam, which ended in dismissal by the judgment dated 03.01.2022. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the tenants are before this Court in this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Act.

¶29

On 24.05.2022, notice was issued to the respondents. The petitioners were permitted to take out notice to the respondents through their counsel before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kottayam, where the Execution Petition in R.C.P. No.17 of 2016 is pending consideration.

¶30

On 23.06.2022, the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶31

¶32

R.C.R.No.76 of 2022

¶33

submitted that the petitioners-tenants are prepared to surrender the petition schedule building to the landlords, for which they require refund of the security deposit. The learned counsel for the respondentslandlords sought time to get instructions.

¶34

Today, when this case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents–landlords would submit that the landlords are prepared to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) towards security deposit on 15.08.2022.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants would

¶36

submit that on receipt of the said amount, the tenants shall give vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room to the landlords, on 15.08.2022.

¶37

Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the landlords and the tenants, this Rent Control Revision is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶41

Saramma Joseph v. Sajan Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saramma Joseph v. Sajan Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

Arunkumar S. Vs the District Collector

Ayanki Muhammed Vs Vysyambath Asma

Surendranathan Pillai Vs Sasidharan Pillai

T.Raghu Prasad Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs T. Reghuprasad