Narongoli Sudheesh vs Valiyambara Sujith
2024 Latest Caselaw 28006 Ker

Kerala High Court

Narongoli Sudheesh vs Valiyambara Sujith on 23 September, 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.
         Monday, the 23rd day of September 2024 / 1st Aswina, 1946

                          RCREV. NO. 162 OF 2024

RCA NO.36/2018 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -IV, THALASSERY

          RCP NO.58/2017 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR

REVISION PETITIONER/APELLANT/RESPONDENT:

     NARONGOLI SUDHEESH, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, N.S. STORES, MARKET
     ROAD, NEAR MAYURI TEXTILES, KANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 001,
     RESIDING AT UPASANA, CHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670006

    BY ADVS.M/S.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL & C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

     VALIYAMBARA SUJITH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. V. LAKSHMAN, RESIDING AT
     MAYURI, ONDEN ROAD, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670001

     This Rent control revision having come up for orders on 23.09.2024,
the court on the same day passed the following:



                                                                     (P.T.O)
                        AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S, JJ.
                       -------------------------------------------------------
                     RCRev. No.154, 159 and 162 of 2024
                         ----------------------------------------------------
                    Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2024


                                           ORDER

Amit Rawal, J.

The petitioners - tenants have not been successful in

defending the eviction petition preferred by the landlord

seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide

necessity, before the Rent Control Court, as well as in the

appeal before the Appellate Authority.

2. After having rendered the argument, we are of the

view that there is no scope for interference with the judgments

as they have been passed on appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence on record as well as the provisions of

the Act.

3. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the

petitioners confine their prayers for granting reasonable time,

which we normally grant six months to vacate the premises.

Issue notice before admission on this limited point to the

respondent by Special Messenger, as well as through the

counsel in the trial court. Post on 20.11.2024. Till such time,

dispossession of the petitioners-tenants shall be stayed.

SD/-

AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE

SD/-

EASWARAN S, JUDGE 23-09-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar sab