Kerala High Court
Saritha Manoj vs Faizal on 1 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 12TH MAGHA, 1944
OP (RC) NO. 26 OF 2023
AGAINST E.A.405/2022 IN EP 113/2021 IN RCP 176/2019 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/THIRD PARTY:
SARITHA MANOJ
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O MANOJ, HOUSE NO. 53, WRAD-I,
BARNESSERY.P.O,KANNUR, PIN - 670013
BY ADVS.
ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
1 FAIZAL
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O AHAMMED, ZAREENA COTTAGE, P.O THANA, KANNUR
- 670012
2 ANIL KUMAR FERNADUS
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O JAMES FERNADUS, "ROSE VILLA", OPP. ARMY
SCHOOL, BARNESSERY, KANNUR - 670013
BY ADVS.
P.P.MUBASHIR ALI
ARCHANA MITHRAN O.K.(K/258/2015)
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(RC) No.26 of 2023 2
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & SOPHY THOMAS, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
O.P.(RC) No.26 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2023.
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The first respondent has obtained an order of
eviction of the second respondent from a residential premises
under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.
Later, the first respondent instituted E.P.No.113 of 2021 for
executing the order of eviction. When delivery was ordered in
the said execution petition, the petitioner preferred an
interlocutory application in the execution petition as E.A.No.405
of 2021 seeking an order staying further proceedings therein
alleging that the second respondent is not in occupation of the
premises; that she is in occupation of the premises; that she is
paying rent to the first respondent, and that the order of
eviction is one obtained by the first respondent in collusion with
the second respondent. The application was preferred invoking
Order XXI Rule 99 of Code of Civil Procedure. Placing reliance
on the decision of the Apex Court in Sriram Housing Finance
and Investment India Ltd. v. Omesh Mishra Memorial
Charitable Trust, 2022 KHC 6650 and the decision of this
court in Jumailath Beevi and Others v. Rajeena and
Others, 2020 (4) KHC 443, the execution court dismissed the
application holding that an application under the said provision
can be filed only by a person who is dispossessed of a property
by the holder of a decree or by the purchaser of a property sold
in execution of a decree. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said
decision of the execution court and hence this original petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
also the learned counsel for the first respondent.
3. In light of the decisions in Sriram Housing
Finance and Investment India Ltd. (supra) and Jumailath
Beevi (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned
order warranting interference of this Court, in exercise of the
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
The original petition, in the circumstances, is devoid
of merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE.
YKB
