Allowed

Ayishabi v. M. Imbicheebi

Kerala HC1 Mar 2024OP (RC)/34/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants challenged a Rent Control Court order permitting the landlord's amendment of an eviction petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The High Court set aside the unreasoned 'Heard. Allowed.' order, holding that reasons are indispensable to quasi-judicial orders, and directed reconsideration with notice and a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order dated 27.09.2022 in I.A.No.1006 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.139 of 2014 set aside; Rent Control Court directed to pass a reasoned order on the amendment application within two weeks.

Ayishabi Vs M. Imbicheebi — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2024)

¶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 G. GIRISH

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2024/11TH PHALGUNA, 1945

¶7

O.P.(RC)NO.34 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2022 IN RCP NO.139 OF 2014 OF

¶9

ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOZHIKODE-I

¶10

PETITIONERS/SUPPLIMENTAL RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 AND 8 TO 11 IN IA/SUPPLIMENTAL RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 AND 8 TO 11 IN

¶11

R.C.P:

¶12

1 AYISHABI

¶13

AGED 72 YEARS, W/O. P.V.ALIKOYA (LATE), 14/741,
MEHRU VILLA, NEAR CALICUT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
KANDUGAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 003

¶14

2 MUHAMMED HARIS

¶15

AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. P.V.ALIKOYA (LATE), 14/741,
MEHRU VILLA, NEAR CALICUT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
KANDUGAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 003

¶16

3 MUHAMMED ILYAS

¶17

AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. P.V.ALIKOYA (LATE), 14/741,
MEHRU VILLA, NEAR CALICUT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
KANDUGAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 003

¶18

4MUHAMMED YUNUS,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. P.V.ALIKOYA (LATE), 14/741,
MEHRU VILLA, NEAR CALICUT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
KANDUGAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 003

¶19

5 MEHARUNNISA,

¶20

AGED 55 YEARS, D/O. P.V.ALIKOYA (LATE),
GRACE, KUTTICHIRA, KUTTICHIRA POST, KOZHIKODE,
PIN – 673 001

¶21

6 RASIYA

¶22

¶23

OP(RC) No.34 of 2023

¶24

AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. P.V.ALIKOYA (LATE), 14/741,
MEHRU VILLA, NEAR CALICUT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
KANDUGAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 003

¶25

7 KAMARUNNISA AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. P.V.ALIKOYA (LATE), 14/741, MEHRU VILLA, NEAR CALICUT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, KANDUGAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 003

¶26

8 RABIYA

¶27

AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. P.V.ALIKOYA (LATE), 14/741,
MEHRU VILLA, NEAR CALICUT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
KANDUGAL, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 003

¶28

BY ADVS.

¶29

K.M.FIROZ
M.SHAJNA

¶30

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN I.A. AND RESPONDENTNO.2 AND

¶31

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENT NO.7 IN I.A./SUPPLEMENTAL

¶32

PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 6 IN R.C.P. AND RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

¶33

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENT NO.7 IN R.C.P.:

¶34

1 M. IMBICHEEBI AGED 75 YEARS, W/O. P.K. MAMUKOYA (LATE), ASHIRVAD, THIRUVANNUR NADA, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN – 673 003

¶35

2 M. ABDUL KHADAR AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. P.K. MAMUKOYA (LATE), ASHIRVAD, THIRUVANNUR NADA, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN – 673 003

¶36

3 M. ABDULLA KOYA AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. P.K. MAMUKOYA (LATE), ASHIRVAD, THIRUVANNUR NADA, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN – 673 003

¶37

4 M. MAHAMOOD

¶38

AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. P.K. MAMUKOYA (LATE), 23/1640 B, RAISAL, PO KALLAI, ASHIRVAD, THIRUVANNUR NADA, PANNIYANKARA AMOMS DESOM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 003

¶39

5SULEKHA M
AGED 51 YEARS, D/O. P.K. MAMUKOYA (LATE),
ASHIRVAD, THIRUVANNUR NADA, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM
DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN – 673 003

¶40

¶41

OP(RC) No.34 of 2023

¶42

6C.K.V. FAISAL ALI
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA KOYA, C/O. M/S. PEE VEE
TRADERS, MERCHANT AND COMMISSION AGENTS, 9/346,
VALIYANGADI, PIN – 673 001

¶43

7MUHAMMED IDREES
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. P.V.ALIKOYA (LATE), 14/741,
MEHRU VILLA, NEAR CALICUT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
KANDUGAL, KOZ, PIN – 673 003

¶44

BY ADV
JACOB ABRAHAM

¶45

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶46

01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶47

FOLLOWING:

OP(RC) No.34 of 2023

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶52

The petitioners are the supplemental respondent Nos.3 to 6 and 8 to 11 in R.C.P.No.139 of 2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-I), Kozhikode, a petition filed by one P.K. Mamukoya, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 5, seeking eviction of the original tenants from the petition schedule shop room under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(2) of the Act and for fixation of fare rent under Section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petitioners have filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P6 order dated 27.09.2022 of the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.1006 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.139 of 2014. That interlocutory application is one filed by respondents 1 to 5, invoking the provisions under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the pleadings in the Rent Control Petition, in order to seek an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. In that interlocutory application, the tenants filed counter. The Rent Control Court allowed I.A.No.1006 of 2017 by Ext.P6

¶53

¶54

OP(RC) No.34 of 2023

¶55

order dated 27.09.2022, Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court in this original petition.

¶56

On 05.02.2024, when this original petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the filing of this matter, R.C.P.No.139 of 2014 was dismissed for default and the application for restoration now stands posted to 07.02.2024 for orders. After taking note of the aforesaid submission, this Court issued notice on admission by special messenger to respondents, returnable by 14.02.2024.

¶57

On 14.02.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 05.02.2024 a mistaken submission was made. Actually, in R.C.P.No.139 of 2014, an ex parte order of eviction has been passed. The tenant has filed an application to set aside the ex parte order of eviction, which is now pending consideration before the Rent Control Court. The learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 sought adjournment.

¶58

Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this original petition.

¶59

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5. Despite service of notice, none appears for others.

¶60

¶61

OP(RC) No.34 of 2023

¶62

Though the learned counsel on both sides raised various legal and factual contentions touching the merits of the matter, which is pending consideration before the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.No.139 of 2014, we do not propose to consider those aspects in these proceedings, since the challenge made against Ext.P6 order can be decided, without going into the merits of those contentions.

¶63

The order of the Rent Control Court in that interlocutory application i.e., Ext.P6 order dated 27.09.2022 in I.A.No.1006 of 2017, reads thus:

¶64

“This is a petition filed under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC.

¶65

Heard. Allowed.

¶66

Carry out amendment within 3 days.” (underline supplied)

¶67

In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union

¶68

[(1971) 1 All.E.R. 1148] Lord Denning, M.R. observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.

¶69

¶70

OP(RC) No.34 of 2023

¶71

9. In Commissioner of Police, Bombay v.

¶72

Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16] the Apex Court held that public orders publicly made, in the exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.

¶73

Following the principle laid down in Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16] the Apex Court has reiterated in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, [(1978) 1 SCC 405 ] that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.

¶74

¶75

OP(RC) No.34 of 2023

¶76

Following the principle laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Apex Court in Chairman and Managing

¶77

Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC 364] held that reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the ‘inscrutable face of the sphinx’, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, speaking out. The ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’ is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

¶78

When the right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, we find no grounds to sustain Ext.P6 order dated 27.09.2022 of the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.1006 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.139 of 2014.

¶79

In such circumstances, this original petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P6 order dated 27.09.2022 of the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.1006 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.139 of 2014.

¶80

¶81

OP(RC) No.34 of 2023

¶82

The Rent Control Court is directed to reconsider that

¶83

interlocutory application with notice to both sides and pass a ‘reasoned order’, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra.

¶84

Since the Rent Control Petition is of the year 2014, we deem it appropriate to direct both parties to appear before the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode, on 15.03.2024 . The Rent Control Court shall pass fresh orders in in I.A.No.1006 of 2017 in R.C.P.No.139 of 2014, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶85

Sd/-

¶86

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

G. GIRISH, JUDGE

ded

OP(RC) No.34 of 2023

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 34/2023

¶93

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶94

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION
DATED 30.05.2014 IN R.C.P. NO. 139 OF 2014
ON THE FILES OF RENT CONTROL COURT /
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT - I, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
06.10.2014 IN RCP NO. 139 OF 2014 ON THE
FILES OF RENT CONTROL COURT / ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF - I, KOZHIKODE FILED BY FIRST
RESPONDENT IN RCP.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED
17.12.2020 FILED BY SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 6 AND 8 TO 11 IN RCP
NO. 139 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF RENT
CONTROL COURT / ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF - I,
KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 1006 OF 2017 IN RCP
NO. 139 OF 2014 DATED 01.03.2017 ON THE
FILES OF RENT CONTROL COURT / ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF'S COURT - I, KOZHIKODE
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
15.01.2021 PREFERRED BY SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 6 AND 8 TO 11 IN I.A.
NO. 1006 OF 2017 IN RCP NO. 139 OF 2014 ON
THE FILES OF RENT CONTROL COURT /
ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF - I, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1006 OF
2017 IN RCP NO. 139 OF 2014 DATED
27.09.2022 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL
COURT / ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT - I,
KOZHIKODE.

Ayishabi v. M. Imbicheebi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayishabi v. M. Imbicheebi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Hashim Vs Ilfathul Islam Sangam (Punnurunni Jama-Ath)

Musthafa @ Ahammadkutty Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

Preman Mavila Vs Nihad Siyadh

Jeevanlal P.K Vs Mukthar Ahammed

Devotees of Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple Vs the Devaswom Commissioner

C.K.Malathi Vs Dhanraj Trust