Pinnacle Motor Works Private ... vs Balakrishnan
2023 Latest Caselaw 9512 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                             &
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 14TH BHADRA, 1945
                  OP (RC) NO. 145 OF 2023
  I.A.No.4 OF 2023 IN R.C.P. NO.8 OF 2020 PENDING ON THE
        FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS:


    1    PINNACLE MOTOR WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NH-47,
         NADATHARA, KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.
         BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 680 014
    2    MOOSA,
         AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.P.K.HYDROSEKUTTY,
         AMBALATHVEETTIL, THAIVALAPPIL, MANAGING
         DIRECTOR, PINNACLE MOTOR WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NH-47,
         NADATHARA, KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
         PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH POWER OF
         ATTORNEY HOLDER NITHYANANDA DHEESHITH.P.S., AGED
         42 YEARS, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, PULINKUZHI HOUSE,
         PUTHUR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680 014
         BY ADVS.
         K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
         DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN
         JISSMON A KURIAKOSE
         SANAL C.S
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT:


    1    BALAKRISHNAN,
         AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.THEYYAN KOTTILINKAL VALAPPIL,
         RESIDING AT LIFE STYLE VILLA NO.38, SHOBHA CITY,
         PUZHAKKAL DESOM, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR
         TALUK, PUZHAKKAL.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680583
 OP (RC)No.145 of 2023             2



     2      SHEBIN,
            AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.PERUMPADI VEETTIL, EXECUTIVE
            DIRECTOR, PINNACLE MOTOR WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,
            PUZHAKKAL PADAM, GURUVAYUR ROAD,
            POONKUNNAM.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680002
            BY ADVS.
            ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN
            K.R.SRIPATHI
         THIS   OP   (RENT   CONTROL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (RC)No.145 of 2023                   3




            P.B.SURESH KUMAR & P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
                -----------------------------------------------
                        O.P. (RC) No.145 of 2023
                -----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 5th day of September, 2023.


                            JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

Petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in R.C.P No.8 of

2020 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, a

proceedings instituted under Sections 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii)

and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)

Act (the Act) for eviction of the first petitioner from a building

stated to have been leased out by the first respondent to the

first petitioner. In the objection filed by the petitioners to the

eviction petition, it was contended, among others, that the

building is one constructed by them in a land taken from the

first respondent on a licence arrangement; that there is no

landlord tenant relationship between the parties in respect of

the building and that the eviction petition is, therefore, not

maintainable. It is alleged by the petitioners that in the

circumstances, they have preferred Ext.P4 application seeking

orders to decide the maintainability of the eviction petition as a

preliminary issue. The case set out by the petitioners in the

original petition is that despite the pendency of Ext.P4

application, the court below has listed the case for trial on

23.08.2023. The petitioners, therefore seek directions to the

Rent Control Court to dispose of Ext.P4 application within a time

frame and to defer trial of the eviction petition till the disposal

of Ext.P4 application.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. It is seen that the eviction petition is one

instituted as early as on 08.01.2020 and it is still pending

despite the mandate in terms of Section 24 of the Act that final

orders in such proceedings shall be passed as far as

practicable, within four months.

4. Be that as it may, the issue of maintainability

raised by the petitioners is not one that falls within the scope of

the second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act. On the other

hand, the issue pertains only as regards the nature of the

transaction. The issue, therefore, is one that could be

considered after taking evidence also.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the

original petition is instituted with ulterior motives to protract

the trial of the eviction petition. The original petition is,

therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Sd/-

P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE.

YKB

APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT TO LEAVE & LICENSE DATED 29.03.2014 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE R.C.(O.P.) NO.

8/2020 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR DATED 06.01.2020 Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 18.05.2020 Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 4/2023 IN R.C.P.NO. 8/2020 DATED 04.04.2023 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, THRISSUR Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P4, DATED 19.06.2023 Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 05.06.2023 IN FAVOUR OF THE NITHYANANDA DHEESHITH.P.S