Annakkutty vs Soosaan @ Sosamma Poulose
2021 Latest Caselaw 7055 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7055 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

Annakkutty vs Soosaan @ Sosamma Poulose on 1 March, 2021

R.C.R.334/2019                      1




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                                    &

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                          RCRev..No.334 OF 2019

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 3/2018 DATED 19-03-2019 OF
   DISTRICT COURT & SESIONS & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                            KALPETTA

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 20/2013 DATED 28-11-2017 OF
               MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE, SULTHAN BATHERI


REVISION PETITIONER/S:

       1         ANNAKKUTTY,
                 AGED 72 YEARS,
                 W/O.LATE OUSEPH, AMBAZHTHINAMKUDI HOUSE,
                 RESIDING AT CHEERAMKUNNU, PURAKKADI AMSOM,
                 CHEENGERI DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK.

       2         SUNI.A.O.,
                 AGED 51 YEARS,
                 D/O.LATE OUSEPH, RESIDING AT CHEERAMKUNNU,
                 PURAKKADI AMSOM, CHEENGERI DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK.

       3         SHOLLY.A.O.,
                 AGED 48 YEARS,
                 D/O.LATE OUSEPH, RESIDING AT CHEERAMKUNNU,
                 PURAKKADI AMSOM, CHEENGERI DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK.

       4         SUNIL OUSEPH,
                 AGED 44 YEARS,
                 S/O.LATE OUSEPH, AMBAZHTHINAMKUDI HOUSE,
                 RESIDING AT CHEERAMKUNNU, PURAKKADI AMSOM,
                 CHEENGERI DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK.
 R.C.R.334/2019                     2

       5         REJITHA,
                 AGED 41 YEARS,
                 D/O.LATE OUSEPH, RESIDING AT CHEERAMKUNNU,
                 PURAKKADI AMSOM, CHEENGERI DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK.

                 BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH

RESPONDENT/S:

                 SOOSAAN @ SOSAMMA POULOSE,
                 W/O.KURUVILA, PERIYIL HOUSE, MEENANGADI POST,
                 PURAKKADI AMSOM DESOM, S.BATHERY TALUK.

                 R1 BY ADV. ABRAHAM.P.GEORGE (CAVEATOR)
                 R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
                 R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.SANTHY

     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
     01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.C.R.334/2019                        3




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of March, 2021

A.Hariprasad, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

respondent. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Rent

Control Court and the Appellate Authority, constituted under the

Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short the

Act), that the revision petitioners are liable to be evicted Under

Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, they have approached this

Court in revision. Admittedly, the respondent is the landlord in

respect of the building scheduled to the petition. It was let out

to the revision petitioners for conducting business in spices. The

respondents approached the Rent Control Court complaining

that the revision petitioners have kept rent in arrears and also

the building is required for their bona fide occupation to start a

business. After considering the rival contentions and evidence of

PWs 1 and 2 on the side of the eviction petitioners and RW1 and

2 on the side of the tenants and also considering Exts.A1 to A10

and B1 to B18 coupled with the testimony of CW1, the Rent

Control Court found that the need put forward in the petition is

true and bona fide. Further, it found that the tenants have not

established the protection available under second proviso to

Section 11(3) of the Act. These findings were challenged in

appeal before the Appellate Authority (District Judge), Kalpatta.

On a re-appraisal of the entire evidence, the Appellate Authority

concurred with the findings of the trial court and confirmed the

order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act and vacated the

finding on Section 11(2)(b) of the Act.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the tenants have preferred this

revision. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides and on

perusal of the impugned judgment, we find no illegality or

irregularity in the approach made by the authorities below in

respect of the finding of bona fide need in favour of the

respondent. Having gone through the matters meticulously, we

are of the view that the revision is bereft of any merit. Hence,

we dismiss the revision. However, considering the fact that the

revision petitioners are doing business in the tenanted premises

for a reasonably long time, we allow them six months time to

vacate the building on fulfilling the following conditions:

1) The tenants/revision petitioners shall file an affidavit within 15 days before the Rent Control Court unconditionally undertaking to vacate the

premises within six months from today.

2) They shall clear off all arrears of rent within a period of one month. They shall continue to pay compensation for use and occupation of the building at the contractual rate until they vacate themselves.