Kerala High Court
P V Suresh vs Kundhappilakkool Subhash on 20 February, 2025
RSA NO. 125 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:14603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA,
1946
RSA NO. 125 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2025 IN AS NO.30 OF 2024
OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT /
COMMERCIAL COURT, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER
DATED 29.08.2024 IN EA NO.553 OF 2023 IN EP NO.168 OF
2019 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER:
P V SURESH
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O LATE BHASKARAN, MADATHUMKANY HOUSE,
VALLANGAD MOKERI (PO), THALASSERRY, PIN - 670692
BY ADVS.
K.MOHANAKANNAN
M.A.ZOHRA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KUNDHAPPILAKKOOL SUBHASH
S/O DAMODARAN AGED 45, JWELLERY ,
KUNDAPPILAKKOOL , PANOOR AMSOM DESOM, PANOOR
(PO) THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670692
2 KUNDHAPPILAKKOOL SUNIL KUMAR
S/O DAMODARAN , AGED 48, JEWELER ,
KUNDAPPILAKKOOL PANOOR AMSOM DESOM, PANOOR (PO)
THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670692
RSA NO. 125 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:14603
3 PUTHAN VEETTIL VINOD
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O LATE BHASKARAN, PUTHAN VEETTIL PANOOR (PO),
PANOOR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670692
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO. 125 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:14603
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2025
1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by a claim
petitioner in the execution proceedings of an eviction
Order in a Rent Control Petition (RCP).
2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed RCP against the
3rd respondent, the same was allowed. The said RCP was
strongly contested by the 3rd respondent. Ultimately, the
Rent Control Court passed Ext.B6 order dated 26.03.2011
ordering eviction of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd
respondent filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority,
and the same was dismissed by Ext.B7 order dated
12.04.2019. The 3rd respondent filed Rent Control
Revision before this Court and the same was dismissed by
Ext.B9 order dated 14.02.2023. Thereafter, it appears
from the pleadings that the 3rd respondent filed a Special
Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the
same was also dismissed.
3. Thereafter, the present claim petitioner has filed
2025:KER:14603
E.A No.553 of 2023 in E.P No.168 of 2019 filed by the 1 st
and 2nd respondent, contending that he and his mother
Smt.Santha were necessary parties in the RCP as the
lease was originally in favour of Mr.Bhaskaran, who was
the father of the 3rd respondent and the Claim Petitioner.
The Execution Court dismissed the Claim Petition. The
appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court,
and the same was also dismissed, confirming the order
passed by the Execution Court.
4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant
Smt. M.A. Zohra, and the learned counsel for respondents
1 and 2, Sri Parthasarathy.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended
that Ext.A2 Legal Heirship Certificate proved that the
appellant, the mother of the appellant and the 3rd
respondent are the legal heirs of late. Bhaskaran. On the
death of Bhaskaran, the lease stood in the name of
Bhaskaran is inherited by his three legal heirs. The
pleadings and evidence would indicate that the RCP was
filed by the respondent 1 and 2 colluding with the 3 rd
2025:KER:14603
respondent. The said order in RCP is not binding on the
other legal heirs of Bhaskaran, who were not parties to
the said order. The order in RCP is not liable to be
executed against the subject matter of the lease in which
the appellant and his mother also have an interest. It is
also submitted that it is the appellant who has been
conducting business in the leased premises and not the
3rd respondent.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents 1 and 2 submits that the original lessee
Bhaskaran died in the year 1992 and thereafter Ext.B1
Lease Deed of the year 1996 was executed in favour of
the 3rd respondent with a consent of the other legal heirs.
The leased premises continued on the basis of Ext.B1
lease deed. Since the 3rd respondent is the only lessee,
the RCP was filed against the 3rd respondent. The 3rd
respondent strongly contested the matter till the Supreme
Court. The RCP is of the year 2009. He tried to protract
the matter at every stage of the litigation. When all his
attempts failed, he inducted his brother to file the present
2025:KER:14603
application, making untenable claims.
7. I have considered the rival contention;
admittedly, the original lessee of the premises is one
Bhaskaran, he died in the year 1992. It is on record that
Ext.B1 lease deed for the year 1996 was executed with
the 3rd respondent. The appellant did not make any claim
when the Ext.B1 Lease Deed was executed in the favour
of the 3rd respondent. The lease continued in the name of
the 3rd respondent for considerable numbers of years
without any claim from the appellant. Even though the
appellant claimed that he had been conducting business in
the petition scheduled room, no evidence in this regard
was produced before the Execution Court. Even though
he claimed that it was he who had been paying the rent,
no evidence was produced in that regard. It is seen that
after the death of Bhaskaran in 1992, the appellant did
not make any claim with respect to the petition scheduled
room. He has raised his claim for the first time in 2023.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent 1 and 2, facts would clearly indicate that the
2025:KER:14603
present application is filed when all attempts of the real
tenant failed to prevent the execution of the eviction
order. The facts would clearly indicate that the present
claimant is sponsored by the 3rd respondent. The
Execution Court, as well as the First Appellate Court,
rightly rejected the claim. I find no reason to interfere,
accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Anu
