Allowed

Kerala State Housing Board v. Shahul P.M.

Kerala HC6 Jan 2023RP/793/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court reviewed an interim order that had been passed under a mistaken impression that the respondent-occupant was still in possession of the premises. The petitioner admitted prior eviction under due process of law. The order was recalled, and the review petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The interim order directing respondents not to evict the petitioner is recalled, and the review petition is allowed.

Kerala State Housing Board Vs Shahul P.M. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944

¶5

RP NO. 793 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21997/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, KOTTAYAM DIVISION, KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 004.

¶10

3 THE ACCOUNTS OFFICER KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, BRANCH OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY, PIN - 686 101.

¶11

BY ADV T.K.SAJEEV

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

SHAHUL P.M. AGED 58 YEARS OVELIL HOUSE, VENDOOR P.O., VENDOOR MURI, CHETHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANASSERY - 686 104, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER O.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, OVELIL PURAYIDATHIL, VELLOOR P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 656 501.

¶14

BY ADV SANIL JOSE

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.P.No. 793 of 2022

V. G. ARUN, J

….............................. R.P.No. 793 of 2022

¶20

…........................................................... Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 27.07.2022, directing the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the leased premises, if the petitioner remits an amount of Rs.1 lakh within one month.

¶23

Learned Standing Counsel points out that the interim order was passed on the impression that the petitioner is still in occupation of the premises. In fact, the petitioner had been evicted from the premises by due process of law long back. On the strength of the interim order, the petitioner is attempting to reoccupy the property.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner was evicted from the premises before the interim order.

¶25

As the interim order was passed under the wrong impression that the petitioner continues to be in occupation of the premises, the Review Petition is allowed and the interim order is recalled.

Dxy

R.P.No. 793 of 2022

APPENDIX OF RP 793/2022

¶30

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶31

Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04/08/2022 LODGE BEFORE THE SHO CHANGANASSERY WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ENDORSED THEREIN.

Kerala State Housing Board v. Shahul P.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Housing Board v. Shahul P.M.

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

Nisanth P.R. Vs the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Alappuzha

Vaiga M, Represented by Her Mother and Next Friend Biji Manoj Vs the State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Govt

Meghna Attoor, (Minor) Vs Director of General Education

Sarath G.Nair Vs Union of India

P.C. Shaji Vs Kerala Water Authority

P.C.James Alias Panachenanickal Chacko Chacko Vs the Manager