Dismissed

Ravi @ Raveendran v. Daya Krishnadas

Kerala HC21 Nov 2022RCRev./79/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants appealed an eviction order under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965. The Court held that jurisdiction was valid despite the tenancy description, though it allowed grounds stating they did not contest the building lease. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; tenants granted six months to surrender vacant possession subject to rent arrears and compliance.

Ravi @ Raveendran Vs Daya Krishnadas — 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

¶6

MONDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 30TH KARTHIKA,

¶7

1944

¶8

RCREV. NO. 79 OF 2020

¶9

JUDGMENT DATED 18.01.2020 IN RCA 91/2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE

¶10

ORDER DATED 28.03.2018 IN RCP 101/2016 OF THE RENT

¶11

CONTROL COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶12

REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5:

¶13

1 RAVI @ RAVEENDRAN, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, DOOR NO. 11/506, RED CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶14

2 [NALINI, AGED 79 YEARS, D/O. KUTTAPPAN, DOORNO. 11/506, RED CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032] * DIED

¶15

3 BABY SAROJA, D/O. KUTTAPPAN, DOORNO. 11/506, RED CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶16

4 JALAJA, D/O. KUTTAPPAN, DOORNO. 11/506, RED CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032

¶17

ADDL.R5 NANDA KUMAR

¶18

AGED 62 YEARS

¶19

S/O P. SADANANDAN, SAFIR, SREELAKSHMI, HOUSE NO. 749, PRAYANCHEREY, KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 016.

¶20

RCREV. NO. 79 OF 2020

¶21

..2..

¶22

ADDL.R6 SANANTH KUMAR P AGED 61 YEARS S/O P. SADANANDAN, 17/1699, SREEKALA, PALAT PARAMBA, NEAR CORONATION THEATRE, CALICUT 673 004. ADDL.R7 SANAL KUMAR P AGED 58 YEARS S/O P. SADANANDAN, 17/1699, SREEKALA, PALAT PARAMBA, NEAR CORONATION THEATRE, CALICUT 673 004. ADDL.R8 P.SANJIT AGED 56 YEARS S/O P. SADANANDAN, 17/1699, SREEKALA, PALAT PARAMBA, NEAR CORONATION THEATRE, CALICUT 673 004. ADDL.R9 SAJANI SADANANDAN AGED 55 YEARS D/O SADANANDAN, PRANAVASREE, EDACHALIL HOUSE, PATTAM VEEDU PARAMBA, KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE 673 016. ADDL.P5 TO P9, BEING LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED P2, ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.02.2022 IN IA NO.2/2022 BY ADVS. M.PROMODH KUMAR SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN ABIMALEK C VALSAN

¶23

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 6-8:

¶24

1 DAYA KRISHNADAS, AGED 69 YEARS D/O. T. CHANDRASEKHARAN, DERBAHG, CHEVARAMBALAM, CHEVAYOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 017

¶25

2 SOBHA PRABHAKARAN, AGED 66 YEARS D/O. T. CHANDRASEKHARAN, ANUMITHA, A.K.G. ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024

¶26

RCREV. NO. 79 OF 2020

¶27

..3..

¶28

3 PRABHA SIVARAM, AGED 64 YEARS,D/O. T. CHANDRAKHARAN, PRABHA, KUNDUPARAMBA, EDAKKAD P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 005

¶29

4 VIJAYALAKSHMI T.C, AGED 61YEARS, D/O. T. CHANDRASEKHARAN, 3/447-D, KANNUR ROAD, NADAKKAV, KOZHIKODE-673011

¶30

5 DHANALAKSHMI T.C, AGED 60 YEARS D/O. T. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MANGAT HOUSE, OMASSERY P.O, VIA-KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 582

¶31

6 RAMESH KUMAR T.C, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. T.CHANDRASEKHARAN, 3/447, KANNUR ROAD, NADAKKAV, KOZHIKODE-673 011

¶32

7 SWAROOPA P, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O. P.SHANMUGHAM, POOKKAT, 4/479 C, BEHND S.N. ACADEMY, A.G. ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032

¶33

8 SMITHA P, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. P. SHANMUGHAM, POOKKAT, 4/479 C,BEHND S.N. ACADEMY, A.G. ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶34

9 SWETHA P, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. P. SHANMUGHAM, POOKKAT, 4/479 C, BEHND S.N. ACADEMY, A.G. ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032

¶35

10 SARATH P, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. P. SHANMUGHAM, POOKKAT, 4/479 C, BEHND S.N ACADEMY,A.G. ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032

¶36

*11 PANTHAYI GANGADHARAN, AGED 69 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 11/506, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KATTU PARAMBIL,RED CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 032

¶37

*12 NISHI, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O. PANTHAYI GANGADHARAN, HOUSE NO. 11/506, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KATTU PARAMBIL, RED CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 032

¶38

RCREV. NO. 79 OF 2020

¶39

..4..

¶40

13 NIMESH, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. PANTHAYI GANGADHARAN, HOUSE NO. 11/506, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KATTU PARAMBIL, RED CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 032. _ THE ADDRESS OF R11 TO R13 IS CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS BELOW AS PER ORDER DATED 6.4.2022 IN RCR 79/2020 VIDE MEMO DATED 24.2.2022_ R11. P.GANGADHARAN, AGED 81 YEARS, NISHI ILLAM, NO.12, 2ND ANNA STREET, THIRUMULLAVAYAL, A VADI, CHENNAI 600 062. R12. NISHI, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.GANGADHARAN, NISHI ILLAM, NO.12, 2ND ANNA STREET, THIRUMULLAVAYAL, A VADI, CHENNAI 600 062. R13. NIMESH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, NISHI ILLAM, NO.12, 2ND ANNA STREET, THIRUMULLAVAYAL, A VADI, CHENNAI 600 062. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

..5..

¶42

RCREV. NO. 79 OF 2020

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶45

The legal heirs of the original tenant, having confronted with an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 (for short, “the Act”) concurrently in favour of the landlords, have come up before this Court with this revision.

¶46

The building in question was originally belonged to one Padmini and Shanmughan. The present respondents are their legal heirs. The

¶47

need that was projected is the requirement for the 10^th respondent, viz., Sarath. He wants to conduct a cafeteria in the petition schedule premises. The tenancy commenced sometime in the year 1948. The original tenant was one Kuttappan. The present tenants are the legal heirs of Kuttappan. The need projected was

¶48

found genuine and bona fide and the

¶49

RCREV. NO. 79 OF 2020

¶50

..6..

¶51

authorities below also found that the order of

¶52

eviction need not be declined as the tenants

¶53

failed to prove objections raised on the ground of first and second provisos to Section 11(3) of the Act.

¶54

In this revision, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners raised main challenge on the ground that the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to order eviction in this matter. According to the learned counsel, the recitals in the petition schedule would show that what was given is the land on 'karaima' and not the

¶55

building. It is further submitted that the tenants are entitled to raise the plea of

¶56

nullity of the proceedings even at the

¶57

revisional stage.

¶58

The recitals in the description of petition schedule read as follows;

¶59

“Kattuparambil Vadakku bhagam Kallukondu Tharachumarum Maram Kondu Pokkium 11 Koottam Kattilavathilukalum cheruthu valuthu koodi 29 Janavathilukalum, Kazhukkol iruthi pattika

¶60

RCREV. NO. 79 OF 2020

¶61

..7..

¶62

tharacha 2 Podi.. ethukalum, vadakku bhagam nirakkoodum palakayum adicha oru murium adakkakulla purayum karaima avakasamaya stalavum koodi

¶63

Calicut Corporation Door No.11/506(New) Red Cross Road

¶64

Survey No.30/1, Re.S.VII-1-4 Corporation assessment Old No.11/506 New No.11/506 ”

¶65

It shows that the original tenant was allowed

¶66

to enjoy the land as well. But, it is to be

¶67

noted that nothing is seen from the description, what was given to the original tenant is the land alone. The description of

¶68

'karaima' only indicates that the land in

¶69

possession of the landlord on 'karaima right' was given on lease. This is fortified from the

¶70

counter affidavit filed by the tenants in the matter. Nowhere the tenants disputed the entrustment of the building. On the other hand, they admitted entrustment of the building and had never raised a case that they were lessees of the land. It is to be noted

¶71

that the original tenant was given a portion

¶72

RCREV. NO. 79 OF 2020

¶73

..8..

¶74

of the building for commercial purpose and thereafter, the other portion was given for residential purpose. This factum had been admitted in the counter affidavit. There is nothing on record to show that what was given

¶75

to the tenants is the lease of the land. In the absence of any material before this Court, this Court cannot now take a contrary view. No other points have been raised.

¶76

The revision petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, we grant six months'

¶77

time to surrender the building on the following terms and conditions;

¶78

1.The revision petitioners/tenants shall file

¶79

an undertaking that they shall surrender

¶80

vacant possession of the petition schedule building within six months from today, which shall be filed within three weeks.

¶81

2.The revision petitioners/tenants shall clear the entire arrears of rent within one

¶82

RCREV. NO. 79 OF 2020

¶83

..9..

¶84

month with interest and shall continue to pay rent thereafter till actual vacant possession of the building is handed over to the respondent/landlords.

¶85

3.On failure to honour the conditions as

¶86

above, the respondents/landlords are free to execute the order in accordance with law.

¶87

Sd/-

¶88

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶89

JUDGE

¶90

Sd/-

¶91

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶92

JUDGE

¶93

bka/-

Ravi @ Raveendran v. Daya Krishnadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi @ Raveendran v. Daya Krishnadas

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

Punnoose Joseph Vs Thomas Varghese (Deceased)

N.D.Leela Alias Leelamma Alias Komalam Vs Rugmini.S.

Biny Kuriakose Vs Joseph Sebastian

The President Vs Vilwadri Infrastructure Private Limited

Usha Vs Janaki

A.K.Girija Kumar Vs the State of Kerala