Kerala High Court
Canara Bank vs Deva Properties Limited on 23 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
RP NO. 383 OF 2021
ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 2/2013 OF I ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVIEW PETITIONERS/REVISION PETITIONERS:
1 CANARA BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, DESI ROAD,
BANGALORE, PIN - 560 002.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER
CANARA BANK, DESI ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN - 560 002.
3 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
CANARA BANK, DESI ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN 560 002.
4 THE MANAGER, CANARA BANK
SPENCER JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
BY ADVS.
C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
DEVA PROPERTIES LIMITED
ANNA SAALI,CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, ORIGINALLY KNOWN AND INCORPORATED AS
M/S.SPENCER ESTATES LTD., CHENNAI - 600 002.
BY ADVS.
PRAVEEN K. JOY
T.A.JOY
E.S.SANEEJ
M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN
M.K.SAMYUKTHA
N.ABHILASH
M.R.ESHRATH BAI
BEENA JOSEPH
SREELEKHA. P
DEEPU RAJAGOPAL
SANDRA S.KUMAR
SWAPNA C.P
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P..No.383 /2021 in
R.C.R.No.154/2014 2
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V & T.R.RAVI, JJ
---------------------------------
CM Appl.No.1 of 2021
&
R.P. No.383 of 2021
in
RCRev. No.154/2014
----------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2021
ORDER
This is an application to condone the delay of 1062 days in preferring the
Review Petition.
2. We have heard Sri. Ramesh Babu, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners as instructed by C.Muralikrishnan, the learned
counsel and Sri. Praveen K.Joy, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
3. This litigation has a long drawn and chequered history. We are of
the view that it would be appropriate to detail the sequence of events before
assessing whether the applicant has made out a sufficient cause for condoning
the delay of over 1000 days.
R.P..No.383 /2021 in
a) The respondent herein is the landlord of a multistoried building
that was leased out to the 1st applicant, a Nationalised Bank.
b) In the year 2009, R.C.P.No.34/2009 was filed by the respondent
seeking fixation of fair rent under Section 5 (1) of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. By order dated
6.12.2012, the Rent Control Court after evaluating the facts and
circumstances, fixed the fair rent at Rs 40/ per square feet.
c) The above order was challenged in appeal and by judgment dated
18.2.2014, the order passed by the Rent Control Court was
confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
d) The applicant/tenant approached this Court and filed R.C.R. No.
154/2014. By order dated 3.4.2017, this Court, while confirming
the findings of the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate
Authority, as regards the locus standi of the landlord to maintain a
petition and also to get the rent-refixed, took the view that the
matter required to be remanded back as it was felt that cogent
materials were lacking before the Subordinate Courts to fix the
rent at Rs 40/ as had been ordered.
e) After remand as aforesaid, in addition to the evidence already
adduced, additional documents were marked by both sides and a
R.P..No.383 /2021 in
witness was examined by the applicant. The Rent Control Court
fixed the fair rent at Rs. 35/- per square feet with a biennial
increase of 10%.
f) The said order was challenged in Appeal and by judgment dated
22.7.2020 in R.C.A. No.11/2019, the order passed by the Rent
Control Court was confirmed.
g) The order was again taken up in Revision before this Court. By
judgment dated 19.11.2020, the orders passed by the Subordinate
Courts were upheld by the Division Bench finding that the Fair
Rent fixed was reasonable, fair and in accordance with the law.
h) A petition for Special Leave to Appeal as SLP No. 1540/2021 was
preferred before the Apex Court. The petitioners sought leave to
withdraw the Special Leave Petition to avail the remedy of review
before this Court. Leave was granted to withdraw the petition and
liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach the Apex Court if
required.
i) For reasons best known to the petitioners, they chose to file two
Review Petitions. RP. No 381 of 2021 was filed seeking to review
RCR 183/2020 and RP No 383/2021 was filed seeking to review
the Order dated 3.4.2017 in RCR No 154/ 2014.
R.P..No.383 /2021 in
j) The very same contentions are seen raised in both the Review
Petitions.
k) R.P. No.381/2021 was heard by the Division bench and by order
dated 24.6.2021, the contentions raised by petitioners were
repelled finding that the petitioners had failed to make out a case
for review of the order. It was further held that apart from the lack
of merit of the contentions advanced, there was also no error
apparent on the face of the records warranting interference in
review.
l) The petitioners did not stop at that. They filed IA No. 3/2021 in
R.P.No.381/2021 seeking to permit the petitioners to advance
arguments on all the grounds raised in the Memorandum of
Review. Their Lordships of the Division Bench after noting that the
attempt is to indirectly seek review of the judgement in
R.P.No.381/2021, dismissed the petition holding that review of the
review order was not permissible.
m) One would have thought that the pursuit of the petitioners to
resuscitate the petitions by raking up untenable contentions would
end at that. However, it was not to be. Reiterating the very same
contentions that were repelled by the Division Bench while
R.P..No.383 /2021 in
considering R.P.No.381/2021, the petitioners are before this Court
4. Having heard the submissions of Sr Ramesh Babu, the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners as instructed by
Sri.C.Muralikrishnan and Sri.Praveen K.Joy, the learned counsel for the
respondent, we find no reason to condone the delay or to entertain this Review
Petition. We find that none of the contentions raised by the petitioners in the
review petition was ever raised by the petitioners at the time of filing R.C.R.
No.154/2014. The order of remand passed in the Revision Petition was
pursued and the petitioners had adduced additional evidence before the Rent
Control Court. The order passed by this Court has worked itself out. The order
passed by the Rent Control Court after the remand was upheld by the Appellate
Authority. The orders passed by the subordinate courts were challenged before
this Court yet again by filing a Revision Petition. This Court had considered all
the contentions raised by the petitioners and had refused to interfere. The SLP
filed challenging the said order was withdrawn. Leave was sought to prefer
review petition before this Court and for reasons best known to the applicants,
they have ventured to prefer Review Petitions challenging orders passed by this
Court at two stages of the litigation. They chose to pursue R.P.No.381/2021
and the Review petition was dismissed after considering the entire aspects.
R.P..No.383 /2021 in
Their attempt to seek review of the said order has also ended in dismissal. It
appears to us that the petitioners are attempting a novel form of "Forum
Shopping".
5. We have no doubt in our mind that this is a clear case of abuse of
process of this Court. The petitioners have neither made out any case on merits
nor have they given us a valid reason to condone the delay of over 1000 days.
Though this is an eminently fit case for imposition of exemplary costs, in view
of the fervent submissions of the learned counsel, we desist from doing so.
The application for condonation of delay will stand dismissed.
Consequently, the unnumbered review petition will also stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI, JUDGE
IAP
