Remanded

Divya Manoj v. Paramekkavu Devaswom by Its President

Kerala HC6 Jan 2022RFA/824/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a trial court eviction decree and amount recovery order. The High Court set aside the recovery and use-and-occupation damage decrees due to missing prayers and calculation discrepancies. The appeal was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration with leave to amend the plaint.

What did the court decide?

Decree for recovery of Rs.3,75,192/- and damages for use and occupation of Rs.31,266/- set aside; matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration with leave to amend plaint.

Divya Manoj Vs Paramekkavu Devaswom by Its President — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

RFA NO. 824 OF 2015 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2015 IN OS No.1770/2012 OF

¶7

I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR

¶8

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶9

DIVYA MANOJ, AGED 29 YEARS, W/o THAZHATH MANOJ, VILVATTOM VILLAGE, CHERUR DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.B.JAYASANKER

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS:

¶12

1 PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, PARAMEKKAVU DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, REP. BY PRESIDENT, K.BALAKRISHNAMENON, AGED 83 YEARS, S/o PADMAVATHIAMMA, KUNNAMBATH VEEDU, MANNATH LANE, THRISSUR - 689 001.

¶13

2 PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, PARAMEKKAVU DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, REP. BY SECRETARY RAVI CHANDRAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/o PADMAVATHIAMMA, RAM NIVAS, KORAPPATH LANE, THRISSUR 689 001.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)

¶15

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RFA No.824 of 2015

JUDGMENT

The trial court granted a decree for recovery of an

¶20

amount of Rs.3,75,192/-, recovery of damage at the rate of Rs.31,266/- for use and occupation while ordering a decree of eviction against which the defendant came up. The suit

¶21

is one for eviction based on the tenancy arrangement covered by Ext.A1 lease agreement. The lease was for a period of 11 months. There is a clause in the agreement for enhanced payment after the completion of three years if the lease was allowed to continue after the expiry of the

¶22

lease period. Since it is an unregistered lease arrangement, the abovesaid clause may not have much legal bearing. But, after termination of the lease, it is

¶23

permissible to order compensation for use and occupation at the rate of rent payable. Accordingly, the trial court has

¶24

ordered damages at the rate of Rs.31,266/- for use and

¶25

occupation. But it is submitted that some mistake had been

¶26

crept in the rental agreement in the calculation of area and the rent payable. It is submitted that the actual area

¶27

RFA No.824 of 2015 3

¶28

rented out is less than what is actually stated in the document. Hence, before assessing the amount payable on account of use and occupation, it is necessary to ascertain the actual area covered by the rent deed for which a remand of the matter is pressed into service.

¶29

there is no much dispute with respect to the termination of lease arrangement under Ext.A2 notice, hence deserves no interference.

¶30

Rs.3,75,192/- no such prayer is incorporated in the plaint

¶31

and no court fee was also paid for the recovery of amount.

¶32

Further, no statement of calculation was included or

¶33

appended in the plaint. Hence, the said decree cannot be sustained.

¶34

confirming the decree of eviction. The decree granting

¶35

recovery of Rs.3,75,192/- and the decree of damages of Rs.31,266/- for use and occupation are hereby set aside and

¶36

RFA No.824 of 2015 4

¶37

remanded the same back to the trial court for fresh consideration. The trial court shall permit the parties to amend the plaint, if it is found necessary, and expedite the disposal within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. Parties shall appear before the trial court on 18^th January,2022.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

RFA No.824 of 2015

APPENDIX

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURE:

¶46

ANNEXURE I	: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.1770/12 OF FIRST
	ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE II	: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S. 1770/12.
ANNEXURE III	: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 1798/10 BEFORE
	MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE IV	: STATUS QUO ORDER IN O.S. 1798/10.

¶47

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE : NIL

¶48

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Divya Manoj v. Paramekkavu Devaswom by Its President

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divya Manoj v. Paramekkavu Devaswom by Its President

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

P.J.Ushakumari Vs

Jacob Vs Narayanan

Lakshmi & Others Vs Rugmini & Others

Muraleedharan Vs Jayarajan G.

M.A. Sishan Vs Poolakkal Sreekumar

M.a.Sishan Vs Poolakkal Sreekumar