Kizhakkayil Hamza Haji vs Puthiyaparambath Ammed Haji
2024 Latest Caselaw 9740 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kizhakkayil Hamza Haji vs Puthiyaparambath Ammed Haji on 4 April, 2024

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

                              &

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

  THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946

                   RCREV. NO. 271 OF 2023

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2023 IN IA           10/2023    IN
R.C.P.NO.21/2019, RENT CONTROL COURT, KALPETTA

JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.2023 IN R.C.A NO.06/2023 OF RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - I), KALPETTA,
WAYANAD

REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
        KIZHAKKAYIL HAMZA HAJI
        AGED 60 YEARS
        S/O.ANDRU HAJI, KIZHAKKAYIL HOUSE, KANIYAMBETTA
        VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT., PIN - 673122


        BY ADVS.
        RAJESH VIJAYAN
        SIKHA S.NAIR


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:


  1     PUTHIYAPARAMBATH AMMED HAJI
        AGED 56 YEARS
        S/O.POKKER, THUNERI AMSOM, MUDAVANTHERI DESOM, VADAKARA
        TALUK, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673505


  2     CHECHAKANDY RABIYATH
        AGED 45 YEARS
        S/O.ABDULLA, CHECHAKANDY HOUSE, EDACHERI AMSOM & DESOM,
        VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673502


  3     PERUVANKUNNINTAVIDA POKKER
        AGED 51 YEARS
                                   2
R.C.(Rev) No.271 of 2023

            S/O.MAMMU, PERUVAMKANDY HOUSE, IYYANGODE AMSOM AND
            DESOM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673504


   4        PERUVANKUNNINTAVIDA MAMI
            AGED 65 YEARS
            W/O.KUNJABDULLA HAJI, PERUVANKUNNINTAVIDA HOUSE,
            IYYANGODE AMSOM AND DESOM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE., PIN -
            673504


   5        PERUVANKUNNINTAVIDA RABIYA
            W/O.AZEEZ, PERUVANKUNNINTAVIDA HOUSE, IYYANGODE AMSOM
            AND DESOM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673504


   6        NADUVILATH KUNJABDULLA HAJI
            S/O.SOOPY HAJI, NADUVILATH HOUSE, KUMMANCODE AMSOM AND
            DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673504


   7        NADUVILATH ALEEMA
            W/O.KUNJABDULLA HAJI, NADUVILATH HOUSE, KUMMANCODE
            AMSOM AND DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE., PIN -
            673504


            BY ADVS.
            Arun Kumar P (Caveator)
            BALAGOPALAN P.(K/89/1988)
            ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL(K/1214/1995)


     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.02.2024, THE COURT ON 04.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                       3
R.C.(Rev) No.271 of 2023

                                 ORDER

G. Girish, J.

The tenant is the revision petitioner. On a petition filed by the

respondents-landlords under Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings

(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), the Rent

Control Court, Kalpetta passed an order under Section 12(1) of the

Act on 18.01.2023, directing the revision petitioner-tenant to

deposit an amount of Rs.32,90,000/- as arrears of rent of the plaint

schedule rooms within four weeks, and to continue deposit of rent

subsequently accruing within two weeks from the date when it

becomes due. Though the revision petitioner-tenant challenged the

above order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional

District Judge-I), Kalpetta by filing R.C.A.No.6 of 2023, the Appellate

Authority confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court and

dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the above judgment dated

29.07.2023 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta, the

petitioner is here with this revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for the respondent.

3. At the outset, it has to be stated that the present revision

petition is prima facie not maintainable since the order passed by

the Rent Control Court under Section 12(1) of the Act is neither

appealable nor subject to challenge in revision. It has been held by

a Division Bench of this Court in Sidharthan v. Hassankutty Haji

[1994 (2) KLT 419] that the order under Section 12(1) of the Act

is procedural in nature directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent

or to show cause why an order under Section 12(3) of the Act should

not be passed directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession,

and that such an order is not a final order or one affecting any right

or liability of a party, and hence not subject to appeal. Thus,

R.C.A.No.6 of 2023 filed by the petitioner-tenant was prima facie not

maintainable in law, and the Appellate Authority ought to have

dismissed the above appeal in limine due to the above reason.

Obviously, due to the same reason, the tenant cannot challenge the

procedural order in the above regard in revision before this Court.

Therefore, the present revision preferred by the tenant, is also

prima facie not maintainable.

4. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that the challenge

against the order passed by the Rent Control Court under Section

12(1) of the Act is based on a contention that the wife of the tenant

was a co-owner of the petition schedule building and hence there

was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The issue

in the above regard has been finally decided by this Court as per the

order of this day in R.C.(Rev).No.263 of 2023 repelling the

contention of the tenant that his wife was having fractional share

over the petition schedule building. In the light of the above decision

of this Court in R.C.(Rev).No.263 of 2023, it is not necessary to delve

upon the above challenge once again in this revision.

5. As a conclusion to the aforesaid discussion, we find that

the present revision filed by the tenant is devoid of merits.

In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.

(sd/-)

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

(sd/-)

G. GIRISH, JUDGE jsr