Kerala High Court
Areefa Beevi vs Dr. Thomas Abraham on 27 June, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
OP (RC) No.79/2024 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
Thursday, the 27th day of June 2024 / 6th Ashadha, 1946
OP (RC) NO. 79 OF 2024
RCP 12/2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
AREEFA BEEVI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O P.S ASHRAFF, AGED 58 YEARS, AMEEN
MANZIL, VETTIPPURAM P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, PROPRIETOR OF
ALANKAR HYPER MARKET, T.K ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 689645
BY ADVS.M/S.MANU RAMACHANDRAN,M.KIRANLAL,R.RAJESH
(VARKALA),T.S.SARATH,SAMEER M NAIR,SAILAKSHMI MENON,JOTHISHA K.A.
& SHIFANA M.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER::
DR. THOMAS ABRAHAM AGED 71 YEARS S/O T.G ABRAHAM, THELLERATHU HOUSE,
CHITTOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE REPRESENTED BY HIS P.A HOLDER,
AJITH MATHEW GEORGE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O DR. T. A GEORGE, THELLERATHU
HOUSE, CHITTOOR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689645
Op (Rent Control) having again come up for orders on 27.6.2024, upon
perusing and this court's order dated 26.06.2024, the court on the same
day passed the following;
(p.t.o)
OP (RC) No.79/2024 2/7
AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.
---------------------------------------
OP (RC) No. 79 of 2024
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024
ORDER
1. This Court vide judgment dated 28.05.2024
disposed of two R.C.Revisions, Nos.46 of 2024 and 60
of 2023 preferred by the tenant as well as the landlord.
2. The controversy between the landlord and
tenant was on the premise that jurisdiction of the Rent
Controller was invoked for fixation of the fair rent on
the premise that the tenant had been running a super
market under the name and style 'Alankar Hyper
Market' and the rent fixed at the time of tenancy was
Rs.30,000/-. The aforementioned super market
consists of three storied building having an area of
8690 sq.feet.
3. Petitioner - tenant opposed the
aforementioned claim. Rent Controller fixed the fair
rent of the premises/building at the rate of Rs.30/- per
sq.feet for the ground floor i.e., 4890 sq.ft and Rs.25/-
per sq.feet for second floor measuring 3800 sq.feet.
4. Tenant preferred an appeal. Appellate
authority on analysis of the documents brought on
record fixed the fair rent as Rs.12.81 per sq.feet of
both the premises i.e., the entire area measuring 8690
sq feet.
5. This court, noticing all these facts upheld the
findings of the appellate authority and granted the
time to the tenant to clear the arrears of rent
determined by the appellate authority within a period
of two(2) months. The operative part of the order
reads as under:
"Tenant is directed to clear the arrears of rent
determined by the Appellate Authority within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment, failing which, the
Landlord would have a right to eviction seek in
accordance with law. We must add here that
lease deed entered into between the parties
contained a clause of increase to the extent of
15% after every three years. Tenant shall
adhere to the same."
6. Two months period would expire on
14.08.2024. The factum of the aforementioned
judgment was brought to the notice of the Rent
Contoller vide I.A.No.4 of 2024 Ext.P4. The contents
of the application reads as under:
"2. The respondent in the above case had filed a
revision petition as RCRev. No.46/2024 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala pertaining to
the petition scheduled shop building and the
Hon'ble High Court was pleased to grant the
respondent two months from the date of receipt
of copy of the judgment, for cleaning the
arrears of rent. Hence the consideration and
trial of the present case may be kept in
abeyance for two months. The copy of the order
of the Hon'ble High Court is produced
herewith. An application filed accompanying
this affidavit for keeping the proceedings and
trial of the present case in abeyance and that
may be allowed in the interest of justice.
Otherwise, the respondent in the present case
will be put to irreparable injury, loss and
hardships."
7. Mr.Manu, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submitted that despite having
brought to the notice of the Rent Controller the factum
of the time granted, Rent Controller allowed the RCP
in finality by ordering eviction on the ground of arrears
of rent and dismissed the application. The details of
which have been taken to us, which are taken on
record. Registry is directed to paginate and put at the
end of the paper book.
8. Since the time granted by this Court has not
expired, in the prima facie view, Rent Controller could
not have ordered for eviction. Issue notice before
admission to the respondents. In the meantime, the
eviction of the tenant is ordered to be stayed.
9. In order to ascertain factual aspects we deem it
appropriate to call for the explanation of the
concerned Rent Controller. Let the explanation of the
Presiding Officer / Rent Controller who rendered the
judgment along with the copy of the judgment be
called for by the Registrar (District Judiciary).
10. The order is to be communicated to the Rent
Controller today itself. Report to be submitted by
29.06.2024.
Post on 01.07.2024.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
vv
27-06-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 79/2024
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.4/2024 IN RCP NO.12/2021 ON
THE FILES OF RENT CONTROLLER (MUNSIFF'S COURT),
PATHANAMTHITTA FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN ALONG
WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
27-06-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
