Disposed

Perumudiveetil Manoharan v. Jamuna Satyapradeep

Kerala HC15 Nov 2023OP(C)/527/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the original petition accepting the petitioner's surrender of the leased premises. The court kept the deposit pending the landlord's initiation of recovery proceedings within three weeks and directed police protection for the handover of possession.

What did the court decide?

Acceptance of surrender of possession; retention of Rs.1 lakh deposit for 3 weeks; direction for police protection.

Perumudiveetil Manoharan Vs Jamuna Satyapradeep — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 527 OF 2021

¶6

IN RCP NO.19/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT:

¶8

PERUMUDIVEETIL MANOHARAN
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LAKSHMI AMMA,
PERUMUDIVEETIL HOUSE, KANDANGALI P.O.,
PAYYANUR, KANNUR-670 307.

¶9

BY ADVS.
SREELAL N.WARRIER
SRI.BIJU MATHEW
SHRI.SHAN V. SHINE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1JAMUNA SATYAPRADEEP
AGED 51 YEARS, D/O. LATE KAPPANA MURALEEDHARAN,
RESIDING AT 2F, GLENDALE POINT (NORTH),
S1 APARTMENTS, NEAR FATHIMA SCAN AND RESEARCH
HOSPITAL SIVAPURI, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001,
REPRESENTED BY POA SRI.G.UMASHANKAR, SON OF
P.GOPALAKRISHNA PANIKKAR, SASI NIVAS, MUNICIPAL
STADIUM WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688 003.

¶12

2SMT.JAGADA RAJENDRAN
AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. LATE KAPPANA MURALEEDHARAN,
RESIDING AT 2F, GLENDALE POINT (NORTH),
S1 APARTMENTS, NEAR FATHIMA SCAN AND RESEARCH
HOSPITAL SIVAPURI, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001,
SRI.G.UMASHANKAR, SON OF P.GOPALAKRISHNA PANIKKAR,
SASI NIVAS, MUNICIPAL STADIUM WARD,
ALAPPUZHA-688 003.

¶13

O.P.(C). NO. 527 OF 2021

¶14

..2..

¶15

3SMT.JALAJA.M.
AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. LATE KAPPANA MURALEEDHARAN,
RESIDING AT 2F, GLENDALE POINT (NORTH),
S1 APARTMENTS, NEAR FATHIMA SCAN AND RESEARCH
HOSPITAL SIVAPURI, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 001,
SRI.G.UMASHANKAR, SON OF P.GOPALAKRISHNA
PANIKKAR, SASI NIVAS, MUNICIPAL STADIUM WARD,
ALAPPUZHA-688 003.

¶16

BY ADV SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P.(C). NO. 527 OF 2021

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 15thday of November, 2023

¶21

Although this matter was heard for some time on
13.11.2023, a submission was made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
prepared to surrender vacant possession of the
scheduled premises to the respondents/landlords.
Accordingly, the petitioner has sworn to an
affidavit, stating that he is prepared to vacate
the premises at any time and also to hand over
the key to the respondents/land lords.

¶22

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the key of the room is presently with the
learned counsel and he is prepared to hand over
the same to the learned counsel for the

¶23

..4..

¶24

O.P.(C). NO. 527 OF 2021

¶25

respondents/landlords, to which course, the
learned counsel for the respondents have no
objection. However, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the respondent have
objection with respect to the averments in
paragraph No.3 of the affidavit.

¶26

3.This Court clarifies that the affidavit is

¶27

accepted, without prejudice to any of the
contentions of the respondents and leaving open
the right of the respondents to initiate
appropriate proceeding for recovery of the rent
arrears, in accordance with law. This Court
records the factum of surrender of the petition
schedule room to the respondents, as also,
handing over of the key to the learned counsel
for the respondents. This original petition is,
accordingly, closed, leaving open the liberty, as
afore referred.

¶28

O.P.(C). NO. 527 OF 2021

¶29

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that a sum of Rs.1 lakh was deposited in the
court below, at the time when this O.P. was
admitted, which is liable to be returned to the
petitioner, inasmuch as the same was only a
deposit. This submission was seriously opposed
by the learned counsel for the respondents. This
Court is of the opinion that the deposit can
continue with the court below for a period of 3
weeks from today, within which time, it will be
open for the respondents/landlords to initiate
appropriate proceedings for recovery of the rent
arrears. Once such proceedings are initiated, it
is relegated to that court to take a call with
respect to the deposit made before that court,
including the option of attaching the said
amount. In case, such proceedings are not
initiated within three weeks, it will be open for

¶30

O.P.(C). NO. 527 OF 2021

¶31

the petitioner to file necessary application
seeking return of the deposit amount of Rs.1
lakh.

¶32

5.In view of the apprehension expressed by the
learned counsel for the respondents that, the
petitioner will cause hindrance when the
respondents proceeds to take physical possession,
this Court directs that the court below to direct
adequate police protection to the respondents/
landlords, in case, any objection is made by the
petitioner/tenant in the matter of handing over
of physical possession.

¶33

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶34

 Sd/-

¶35

C. JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶36

Skk//18.11.2023

¶37

O.P.(C). NO. 527 OF 2021

¶38

..7..

¶39

A P PENDIX OF OP(C) 527/2021

¶40

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-

¶41

EXHIBIT P1

¶42

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXECUTION
PETITION NUMBERED E.P.57 OF 2019 IN
R.C.P.NO.19 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF
HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANOOR

¶43

EXHIBIT P2

¶44

TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN E.P.57 F
2019 IN RCP NO.19 OF 2011 ON THE FILE
OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANOOR

¶45

EXHIBIT P3

¶46

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANOOR IN EP
57 OF 2019 IN RCP NO.19 OF 2011

Perumudiveetil Manoharan v. Jamuna Satyapradeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perumudiveetil Manoharan v. Jamuna Satyapradeep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Athira Kn Vs Vishnu Vijayakumar Nair

Santhamma P.K Vs Radhakrishnan P.C

B.Gayathri Vs N.R.Arjunkumar

Sujith Vs Vinayasobhini

K.K Sasi@ Sasinath Vs M/S Maniamkot Advertising India Private Limited

C.A John Vs C.A Joseph @ Pappa