Dismissed

Nataraja Kumar, v. M.Shahul Hameed

Kerala HC9 Aug 2023RCRev./218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment records the withdrawal of a Rent Control Revision petition by the petitioner. The petitioner, who was challenging an order against a deceased first respondent in earlier proceedings, sought permission to withdraw the present revision without prejudice to filing a fresh one against the legal representatives.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request to withdraw the Rent Control Revision without prejudice was allowed; the matter is dismissed as withdrawn.

Nataraja Kumar, Vs M.Shahul Hameed — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶4

&

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶7

RCREV. NO.218 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2019 IN RCA NO.10 OF 2017

¶9

OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON ORDER IN RCP NO.53 OF 2009 DATED

¶11

21.12.2016 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶12

REVISION PETITIONER/1ST APPELLANT/1STCOUNTER PETITIONER:-

¶13

NATARAJA KUMAR,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. LATE N.S. BABU, T.C. NO.38/133, POWER HOUSE
ROAD, THYCAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
BY ADV K.RAJESH KANNAN

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2/PETITIONERS:-

¶15

1 M.SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. LATE P.A. MOHAMMED KANNU, PAP MANZIL, T.C.41/2423, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.

¶16

2 HABEEB, S/O. LATE P.A. MOHAMMED KANNU, PAP MANZIL, T.C.41/2423, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.

¶17

BY ADVS.
KISHORE D

¶18

MEERA GOPINATH(K/001803/1999.)
R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)(K/000583/2008)
ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM(K/003544/2022)

¶19

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

R.C.Rev.No.218 of 2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶24

The petitioner, who is the 1^st respondent in R.C.P.No.53 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thiruvananthapuram and the 1^st appellant in R.C.A.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge-II), Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this Rent Control Revision, invoking the provisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging the judgment dated 23.11.2019 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.10 of 2017 and the order dated 21.12.2016 of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.53 of 2009.

¶25

On 12.12.2022, when this revision petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents. In I.A.No.2 of 2022, this Court granted an interim stay of the operation of the judgment dated 23.11.2019 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.10 of 2017 for a period of three months. 3. The 1^st respondent died on 20.01.2020, even before the

¶26

filing of this Rent Control Revision. The petitioners have filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 seeking an order to set aside abatement and

¶27

¶28

R.C.Rev.No.218 of 2022

¶29

to implead the legal representatives of the deceased 1^st respondent

¶30

as additional respondents 3 to 7, along with C.M. Appl. No.1 of 2023 to condone the delay of 269 days in filing the petition to set aside abatement. The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the said applications, opposing the reliefs sought for, since the 1^st respondent died even before the filing of this Rent Control Revision.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1^st respondent died on 20.01.2020. Since this revision petition filed on 11.02.2020 is against a dead person, the learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw this Rent Control Revision, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh revision petition in an appropriate manner.

¶33

In such circumstances, this Rent Control Revision is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Nataraja Kumar, v. M.Shahul Hameed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nataraja Kumar, v. M.Shahul Hameed

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

State of Kerala Vs Shylaja

K.R.Unnikrishnan Potti, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

E.C.Jose Vs v.Gopalakrishnan

Vineet Ganesh, Vs Priyanka Vasan

A P. Parameswaran Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Gracy Abraham Vs Joseph and Others