Kerala High Court
Shobha Mani vs Philip Thomas on 24 March, 2021
O.P.(RC).No.50/2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943
OP (RC).No.50 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 103/2018 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF
COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
SHOBHA MANI,
AGED 62 YEARS,
W/O.LATE WALTER JOSEPH, THONDAYIL (H),
55/4064, MILLS LANE ROAD, S.A. ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016.
BY ADV. SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PHILIP THOMAS,
AGED 75 YEARS,
S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT K/12, BCG, GOLDEN ORCHID,
2ND PHASE, ROOBY LANE, THAMMANAM-32, ERNAKULAM.
2 CHERIYAM PHILIP,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. PHILIP, RESIDING AT K/12, BCG,
GOLDEN ORCHID, 2ND PHASE, ROOBY LANE,
THAMMANAM-32, ERNAKULAM.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ
R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.GANGA A.SANKAR
R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.REJIVUE
R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL
O.P.(RC).No.50/2021 2
R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU RAJAGOPAL
R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.VISWAJITH C.K
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(RC).No.50/2021 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of March 2021
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.
Petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.237 of 2019 in
R.C.P.No.103 of 2018, pending before the Principal Munsiff Court,
Ernakulam. The prayer sought for by the petitioner is as follows:
"i) To set aside order dated 18/03/2021 in E.A.90/2021 in
E.P.237/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Principal Munsiff
Court, Ernakulam;
ii) To issue an order or direction, allowing Exhibit P-2
application granting the petitioner 3 months time to
vacate the petition schedule building in E.P.237/2019 on
the files of the Hon'ble Principal Munsiff Court,
Ernakulam;"
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was the tenant in the
building, which is the petition schedule building in R.C.P.No.103 of
2018. The aforesaid petition was filed by the respondents herein,
seeking eviction of the petitioner. It was contended by the petitioner
that, the building was occupied by the petitioner for the purpose of
running a hostel and the monthly rent is Rs.40,000/-. In the rent
control proceedings, land lord filed an application under Section 12 of
the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter
called 'Act', seeking for a direction to the petitioner herein to deposit
the arrears of admitted rent. The Rent Control Court passed an order
under Section 12(1) of the Act directing the petitioner to remit the
total amount of Rs.5,95,000/-. Said direction was not complied with
and hence, the Rent Control Court passed an order under Section
12(3) of the Act on 24.05.2019. Challenging the same, the
petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A.No.45 of 2019. In the said proceedings,
an interim stay was granted against eviction of the petitioners herein,
on condition that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- have to be deposited and
this condition was complied with. However, later, as per order dated
07.12.2019, the R.C.A.No.45/2019 was also dismissed on merits.
Challenging the same, the petitioner herein filed R.C.R.No.56/2020
before this Court. After hearing both the parties, this Court
dismissed the said revision petition as per judgment dated
12.03.2020, by confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent
Control Authorities.
3. In the mean while, the respondents filed E.P..237/2019
before the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam and in which the
petitioner herein filed E.A.No.90/2021, seeking three months time to
vacate the premises. It is reported that the said application is
dismissed on 18.03.2021 and the petitioner was directed to be evicted
from the petition schedule property immediately. The present original
petition is filed by the petitioner in the above circumstances.
4. When this original petition came up for admission before
this Court, on 19.03.2021, the learned counsel appeared for the
respondents seriously objected the prayer sought for in the original
petition. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that, as on date
an amount of about 15,00,000/- is due from the petitioner herein
towards arrears of rent. It was contended by him that, present
petition is filed only to prolong the execution proceedings and since
the order of eviction now stands confirmed in R.C.R.No.56/2020, the
present original petition is to be dismissed.
5. After hearing both sides, on 19.03.2021, this Court granted
an interim order till today on condition that the petitioner shall
deposit an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- before the execution court on or
before 23.03.2021. The said condition was imposed by this Court to
examine the bona fides of the petitioner in seeking extension of time
for eviction from the premises. It is also a fact to be noted in this
regard that, admittedly the arrears of rent as on the date was about
15,00,000/-.
6. However, when the matter taken up today, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition imposed by
this court could not be complied with and he seeks further time to pay
the said amount and also seeking extension of interim order. It is a
relevant aspect to notice that, main issue involved in this case is
regarding the non payment of arrears. The Rent Control Court and
Rent Control Appellate Authority have rejected the contentions put
forward by the petitioner in connection with the same. Section 12 of
the Act contains stipulations regarding the consequences of non
payment of admitted rent. Said provision is incorporated for
protecting the interest of the land lord against the denial of admitted
arrears of rent. Petitioner herein had exhausted all the remedies
available under the statute without any favourable results. The
finding of the Rent Control Court under Section 12 attained finality by
virtue of the order passed by this Court in R.C.R.No.56/2020. In the
above circumstances, the Rent Control Court rightly rejected Ext.P2
application, which was filed by the petitioner seeking enlargement of
time to evict the premises. Therefore, in these circumstances, the
order passed by the Rent Control Court in E.A.No.90/2021 cannot be
said to be suffering from any infirmity. Therefore, the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is not warranted.
It is also a relevant aspect to be noticed in this regard that, the
petitioner is not even in a position to comply with the condition
imposed by this Court as per order dated 19.03.2021. In the above
circumstances, we do not see any ground to interfere with the matter
as no justifiable grounds are found in favour of the petitioner. The
original petition is devoid of any merits and hence dismissed.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
DG JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED
BY THE RESPONDENTS /DECREE HOLDERS UNDER
ORDER XXI RULES 10 AND 11 OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE CODE R/W SECTION 14 OF THE KERALA
BUILDING (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT,
1965.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE E.A. 90/2021 IN E.P.
237/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN E.P. NO.
237/2019 ON 18.3.2021 UPDATED IN ONLINE E-
COURT SERVICES.
EXHIBIT P4 A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PETITIONER.
