Partly allowed

Maraam Veettil Vinu Kumar v. Angadiprath Devi

Kerala HC27 Jun 2024RCRev./86/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the withdrawal of two rent control revision petitions filed by landlords against orders rejecting their eviction applications on grounds of bonafide necessity. The Court granted the landlord a short period to seek fresh eviction proceedings, directing the tenant to vacate within six months while maintaining abeyance on the current eviction order.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to withdraw revision petitions with liberty to seek fresh eviction; tenant to vacate within six months and clear arrears.

Maraam Veettil Vinu Kumar Vs Angadiprath Devi — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946 RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021

¶7

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

¶8

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶9

POYIL RAJU AGED 71 YEARS S/O. ANDI, KUNNUMMAKKARA AMSOM, NELLACHERI DESOM, ONCHIYAM (PO), VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. NIRMAL.S SMT.VEENA HARI

¶11

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶12

1 ANGADIPRATH DEVI AGED 71 YEARS W/O. PADMANABHAN, SWASTHAM, RESIDING AT KUNIYIL, CHEMERI, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM, RAYANRANGOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 501.

¶13

2 ANGADIPRATH PADMANABAN, AGED 79 YEARS S/O. ANDI, SWASTHAM, RESIDING AT KUNIYIL, CHEMERI, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM, RAYANRANGOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673 501.

¶14

3 BINDU V.T D/O. PADMANABHAN, SURABHI (HO), MUTTUNGAL (PO) VALLIKAD, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106

¶15

RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case

¶16

¶17

4 PREETHA V.T KOMAROTH(HO), THEVARA(PO), KONTHURUTHY SOUTH, KOCHI, PIN - 682013

¶18

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 85/2021)

¶19

BY ADVS. B.KRISHNAN R.PARTHASARATHY

¶20

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:

¶21

¶22

RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶28

THURSDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946 RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2021

¶29

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:

¶30

MARAAM VEETTIL VINU KUMAR AGED 45 YEARS S/O. RAJU, RESIDING AT 'POYIL', ONCHIYAM P. O., KUNNUMMAKKARA AMSOM, NELLACHERI DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶31

BY ADVS. NIRMAL.S SMT.VEENA HARI

¶32

RESPONDENT/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶33

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.

¶34

2 ANGADIPRATH PADMANABAN AGED 80 YEARS S/O.ANDI, SWASTHAM, RESIDING AT KUNIYIL, CHEMERI, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM, RAYANRANGOTH DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 501.

¶35

RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case

¶36

¶37

3 BINDU V.T D/O. PADMANABHAN, SURABHI (HO), MUTTUNGAL (PO) VALLIKAD, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673106

¶38

4 PREETHA V.T KOMAROTH(HO), THEVARA(PO), KONTHURUTHY SOUTH, KOCHI, PIN - 682013

¶39

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)

¶40

BY ADVS. R.PARTHASARATHY B.KRISHNAN

¶41

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:

¶42

¶43

RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Amit Rawal, J.

¶46

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.

¶47

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.

¶48

The counsel for the respondent submitted that the parties have been litigating for the past six years and therefore opposed the prayer of granting six months time but his client is willing to grant

¶49

RCREV. NO. 85 OF 2021 and conctd. Case

¶50

¶51

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:

¶52

Tenant will vacate the premises within six months from today and continue to pay the rent and shall also clear all the arrears, if any within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment

¶53

Tenant is directed to file an undertaking to this effect before the Rent Controller that he/shall vacate the premises and pay the rent within a period of one month from today.

¶54

Till such time, the order of eviction is ordered to be kept in abeyance.

¶55

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

Maraam Veettil Vinu Kumar v. Angadiprath Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maraam Veettil Vinu Kumar v. Angadiprath Devi

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

Union of India, Vs G.Abraham

K.Viswanatha Panicker, Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-1

K.K.Yousuf Vs Ramlath.K.P

Satheesh Raj Pillai, Vs Union of India

Poyil Raju Vs Angadiprath Devi

Union of India Vs Col Nc Isaac (Retd) No IC-45788P