SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ker) 612

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, A. BADHARUDEEN
Girindra Global Hospitality, Represented by Its Managing Partner Dheeraj Through by His Power of Attorney Holder Franco Thomas, Thrissur – Appellant
Versus
Manappuram Hotels (P) Ltd. , Represented By Its Director and Authorised Signatory, Marghasahayam V. Srinivasan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sabu George, P.B. Krishnan, P.B. Subramanyan, Joseph Freeman, Manu Vyasan Peter.
For the Respondent: Sreekala Krishnadas, C. Vivek, Aparna Nair, Ashly James, Renjini Rameshan.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petitioners-tenant-contest the applicability of arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to Rent Control proceedings; the court examines the propriety of referring disputes to arbitration in such context. (!) (!) - Section 12 of the Kerala Rent Control Act requires tenants to pay or deposit arrears to contest eviction; the court discusses the consequences of non-deposit and the time frames for deposit. (!) (!) (!) - The court holds that the Rent Control Court need not suspend consideration of Section 12 applications pending resolution of arbitration or appointment of an Advocate Commissioner; the petition is dismissed, and directions for expeditious disposal are provided. (!) (!) - The case emphasizes time-bound disposal and communication of judgments to Rent Control Courts/Appellate Authorities statewide. (!) - The court clarifies that disputes over plinth area and arrears are to be resolved within the statutory framework, with emphasis on estoppel regarding previously accepted lease terms. (!)

How to determine the enforceability of arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in Rent Control proceedings where the tenant seeks reference to arbitration?

What is the effect of Section 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the tenant’s right to contest eviction when arrears are not deposited within the time fixed by the court?

What are the limits of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 regarding timelines and directions to Rent Control Courts in eviction petitions involving arbitration and measurement reports?


JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners are the respondents-tenants in R.C.P.No.83 of 2021 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Ist Additional Munsiff), Thrissur, a petition filed by the respondents herein-landlords under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking eviction of the tenants from the petition schedule building, on the ground of arrears of rent. The petitioners have filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the Rent Control Court to dispose of Exts.P6 and P8 interlocutory applications, i.e., I.A.No.8 of 2022 and I.A.No.9 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.83 of 2021, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, and to direct the Rent Control Court to keep in abeyance the consideration of Ext.P2 interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.3 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.83 of 2021 filed by the respondents-landlords under Section 12 of the Act seeking an order directing the tenants to remit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.1,17,60,000/- with 6% interest from their respective dates of default, within a period of four weeks from the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top