Kerala High Court
Oliyil Salim vs Oliyil Salim on 8 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942
OP (RC).No.4 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT E.P.NO.296/2019 IN IN RCP 33/2015 OF
RENT CONTROL COURT,PARAPPANANGADI
PETITIONER/JUDGEMNT DEBTOR/RESPONDENT:
OLIYIL SALIM
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. MODIEENKUTTY, THANGAL BUILDING, P.O.TANOOR,
RAYIRIAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, PIN-676302.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
SRI.K.SUNIL
SRI.RINU. S. ASWAN
SMT.M.ARDRA KRISHNAN
SMT.ALEENA MARIA JOSE
SMT.SUSAN JACOB (S-3481)
RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDING/PETITIONER:
SAIDU HUSSIAN KUNJU KOYA THANGAL
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA THANGAL, VALIYAKKATHODUKAYIL,
P.O.TANOOR, RAYIRIAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK,
PIN-676302.
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (RC).No.4 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of January 2021
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner is before us claiming that the delivery of the
tenanted premises is kept for today and he requires a stay of the
proceedings. Admittedly, the landlord had claimed for arrears of
rent under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act. There was no
objection filed nor were any amounts paid. The court issued
show cause under Section 12 (1) and there was no order passed
under Section 12(2) is the contention taken.
2. Admittedly there was an order issued under Section
12(1) to pay the admitted arrears or to show cause, which was
not complied with. An application filed by the tenant is seen,
from the impugned order, to have been rejected and no
extension of time for payment was sought for. Later, the Rent
Control Court passed Ext.P5 order directing the tenant to put
the landlord in possession of the petition schedule building
within one month from the date of the order. The said order was
passed on 25.03.2019; almost two years back in a Rent Control
Petition of the year 2015. E.P. was filed in 2019 itself and the
tenant appeared therein and participated in the proceedings.
3. The claim now raised by the tenant is that an appeal
is filed against Ext.P5 order, on 04.01.2021 and since it is
pending, the delivery may be stayed. The learned Counsel urged
that there is also a valid legal ground of the order under Section
12(2) having not been passed.
4. We are not inclined to entertain the O.P especially
noticing the fact that for two years the tenant had not chosen to
challenge Ext.P5 order. The tenant also had been participated in
the execution proceedings and only when the delivery
commenced, the tenant has thought it to file an appeal from the
order passed almost two years back. The appeal itself is grossly
delayed. We find no reason to exercise the revisional jurisdiction
and dismiss the original petition.
Registry shall communicate the dismissal of the case to the
concerned court, immediately.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.R.ANITHA
SHG JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 10TH
DECEMBER, 2014 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION
FILED AS R.C.P.NO.33 OF 2015 ON THE FILES
OF RENT CONTROL COURT, PARAPPANANGADI.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN R.C.P.NO.33 OF 2015 ON THE
FILES OF RENT CONTROL COURT,
PARAPPANANGADI.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
SECTION 12 PETITION FILED IN R.C.P.NO.33 OF
2015 ON THE FILES OF RENT CONTROL COURT,
PARAPPANANGADI.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.3.2019 IN
R.C.P.NO.33 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF RENT
CONTROL COURT, PARAPPANANGADI.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF E.P.NO.296 OF 2019 ON THE
FILES OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, (EXECUTION)
PARAPPANANGADI.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.1.2021 IN
SERIAL NO.66 IN THE A-DIARY TAKEN FROM THE
E-COURT SERVICES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
(EXECUTION) PARAPPANANGADI IN RELATION TO
E.P.NO.296 OF 2019.
