Tenants withdrew rent control revision petitions seeking time to vacate premises. Court granted six months to vacate, clear arrears, and pay rent on withdrawal of pending writ petition, with eviction order kept in abeyance subject to default conditions.
Petition dismissed; time granted to vacate premises within six months upon withdrawal of writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946 RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2021 IN RCA NO.38 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 IN RCP NO.127 OF 2017 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
POYIL RAJU AGED 71 YEARS S/O. ANDI, KUNNUMMAKKARA AMSOM, NELLACHERI DESOM, ONCHIYAM (PO), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. NIRMAL.S SMT.VEENA HARI
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ANGADIPRATH DEVI AGED 71 YEARS W/O. PADMANABHAN, SWASTHAM, RESIDING AT KUNIYIL, CHEMERI, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM, RAYANRANGOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 501.
2 ANGADIPRATH PADMANABAN, AGED 79 YEARS S/O. ANDI, SWASTHAM, RESIDING AT KUNIYIL, CHEMERI, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM, RAYANRANGOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 501.
3 BINDU V.T D/O. PADMANABHAN, SURABHI (HO), MUTTUNGAL (PO) VALLIKAD, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106
RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case
2
BY ADVS. B.KRISHNAN R.PARTHASARATHY
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2024, ALONG WITH RCRev.86/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946 RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2021 IN RCA NO.39 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 IN RCP NO.128 OF 2017 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
MARAAM VEETTIL VINU KUMAR AGED 45 YEARS S/O. RAJU, RESIDING AT 'POYIL', ONCHIYAM P. O., KUNNUMMAKKARA AMSOM, NELLACHERI DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. NIRMAL.S SMT.VEENA HARI
RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ANGADIPRATH DEVI AGED 72 YEARS W/O.PADMANABHAN, SWASTHAM, RESIDING AT KUNIYIL, CHEMERI, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM, RAYANRANGOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 501.
2 ANGADIPRATH PADMANABAN AGED 80 YEARS S/O.ANDI, SWASTHAM, RESIDING AT KUNIYIL, CHEMERI, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM, RAYANRANGOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 501.
RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case
4
3 BINDU V.T D/O. PADMANABHAN, SURABHI (HO), MUTTUNGAL (PO) VALLIKAD, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106
4 PREETHA V.T KOMAROTH(HO), THEVARA(PO), KONTHURUTHY SOUTH, KOCHI, PIN - 682013
5 BIJU V.T S/O. PADMANABHAN, SURABHI (HO), MUTTUNGAL (PO) VALLIKAD, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106 (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 22/12/2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN RCR 86/2021)
BY ADVS. R.PARTHASARATHY B.KRISHNAN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2024, ALONG WITH RCRev..85/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
Present revision petitions are directed against the findings of the appellate authority whereby the findings of the Rent Controller declining the relief of eviction to the respondent-landlord sought for bonafide necessity was rejected. In other words, appellate authority has reversed the findings by taking into consideration two points, the averments in the rent petition and the subsequent events, ie., vacation of one room during the pendency of the rent petitions primarily on the ground that the personal necessity would laid back to the filing of the rent petition. It is pertinent to mention here that another ground for eviction was areas of rent. Eviction order was passed against the tenant. The tenant preferred a cross objection but was not pressed.
2. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the prima facie view that the findings of fact and law arrived at by the appellate authority is perfectly legal and justified and about to dictate the judgment, seeks for withdrawal of the writ petition by granting six months time.
RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case
6
two months time. Keeping in view the contention and the fact that the petitioners-tenants are running the business in the disputed/scheduled/demised premises since 2006-2007, liberty is granted to withdraw the petition with the following conditions:
In case of any default of the aforementioned conditions, respondent-landlord shall be entitled to seek the eviction in accordance with law.
SD/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
SD/-
sab
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the tenant can be granted time to vacate the premises pending withdrawal of revision petitions.
Whether the appellate authority's rejection of bonafide necessity claim was legal and justified.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Poyil Raju
Maranam Veettil Vinu Kumar
Angadiprath Devi
Angadiprath Padmanaban
Bindu V.T
Preetha V.T Komaroth
Amit Rawal
Easwaran S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
