Prabhakara Prabhu vs K.P. Sureshkumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 14173 Ker

Kerala High Court

Prabhakara Prabhu vs K.P. Sureshkumar on 29 May, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
                               &
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
 WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                    RCREV. NO. 86 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2023 IN RCA NO.7 OF 2023
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2023 IN RCP NO.5 OF 2020 OF MUNSIFF
                       COURT,KAYAMKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

          PRABHAKARA PRABHU,
          AGED 66 YEARS
          S/O. GOVINDA PRABHU, PUTHANVEETTIL,
          KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE,
          PIN - 690502
          BY ADV A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

          K.P. SURESHKUMAR
          AGED 55 YEARS,
          S/O. PADMANABHA SHENOY,
          KANDATHIL HOUSE, KAYAMKULAM MURI,
          KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, PIN - 690502

          BY ADVS.
          HARIKUMAR T S
          P.B.SAHASRANAMAN(K/121/1984)
          RAJAN K.(K/001019/2018)


     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.C.Rev. 86/2024                       2



                                    ORDER

AMIT RAWAL, J.

The present petition is at the instance of the

tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted by the Rent

Controller, which has been affirmed by the Appellate

Authority, in a petition filed by the landlord for seeking

ejectment, on the ground of bonafide need for, his wife,

who had been doing the business of ice cream, needed the

shop in question in order to expand the business by

starting an ice cream parlour.

2. Notice was issued on admission to the respondent

by speed post. Learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-landlord submitted that in the absence of order

of stay, the possession has already been taken. Even on

merits also, we do not find any ground for interference as

there is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent

finding of fact.

Revision petition is dismissed.

SD/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

SD/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE DCS/29.05.2024