2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10531
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
M/S RAYS TRAVELS BUREAU – Appellant
Versus
SMT. PADMAJA NARAYANANKUTTY – Respondent
OP (RC) 64/2025
Advocates:
SMT.S.MUMTAZ, SMT.ALISHA ASLAM, SMT.AMINA RUBY FAIZAL, SRI.ARPANAI T.A., SMT.BHAVANA VIJAYAKUMAR, SRI.MATHEW SKARIA, SRI.JOY JOSEPH (MUNDACKAL)(K/212/1981), SRI.THOMAS MATHEW (KOPPARA)(K/45/2011)
The Execution Court must adhere to the final orders of the Rent Control Court and cannot entertain challenges once an order is final.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 12(3) - Execution proceedings for non-payment of rent - The Execution Court's order for delivery of the building was upheld as it did not exceed the authority of the Rent Control Court, which had issued a final order. The petitioners' objections were overruled, and the court found no grounds to challenge the execution under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Jurisdiction of Execution Court - The Execution Court is bound by the orders of the Rent Control Court and cannot entertain challenges to the execution proceedings once the order has become final. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, as tenants, faced an execution order for non-payment of admitted rent areas, which they contested. The Execution Court ruled in favor of the landlord, leading to the petitioners' appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the Execution Court acted within its jurisdiction and upheld the finality of the Rent Control Court's order.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Execution Court could be challenged under Article 227 after the Rent Control Court's order became final.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Execution Court must adhere to the final orders of the Rent Control Court and cannot entertain objections once an order is final.
Result: The Original Petition fails and is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioners in this case are the tenants. An order under Section 12 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 has been passed by the Rent Control Court for non payment of admitted areas. The landlord filed an Execution Petition and the petitioners opposed the Execution. Overruling the objection, the Execution Court ordered delivery of the building. This is how the petitioners approached this Court. 2. The Execution Court cannot go beyond the order passed by the Rent Control Court. The impugned order appears to have become final. In such circumstances, there is no scope for challenging the execution proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Original Petition fails and is dismissed.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
