Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 28TH BHADRA, 1941 RCRev..No.174 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2018 IN RCA NO.69/2017 OF III RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 IN RCP NO.113/2005 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:
1 OKTOPALS SPORTS M.G.ROAD,THRISSUR VILLAGE,TALUK,REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER IGNI MATHEW,AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.CHOORAKUTTIYIL MATHEW,B-9,SOUTH PARK APARTMENTS,KANNAMKULANGARA DESOM,CHIYYARAM VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK.
2 IGNI MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.CHOORAKUTTIYIL MATHEW, B-9, SOUTH PARK APARTMENTS,KANNMKUNALGARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
3 MARY PATHROSE, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.CHOORAKUTTIYIL IGNI, B-9, SOUTH PARK APARTMENTS, KANNMKUNALGARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENTS:/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
1 CHANDRAPRAKASH, S/O.NANDILATH PARAMBIL GOVINDAN, CHEMBUKKAVU DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK-680001.
2 USHARANI, AGED 52 YEARS,W/O.NANDILATH PARAMBIL CHANDRAPRAKASH,CHEMBUKKAVU DESOM AND VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK-680001.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.ROBSON PAUL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.08.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev..175/2019, RCRev..177/2019, THE COURT ON 19.09.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 28TH BHADRA, 1941 RCRev..No.175 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2018 IN RCA NO.68/2017 OF III RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 IN RCP NO.117/2005 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:
1 OKTOPALS, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR VILLAGE, TALUK, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER IGNI MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.CHOORAKUTTIYIL MATHEW, B-9, SOUTH PARK APARTMENTS, KANNAMKULANGARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
2 IGNI MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.CHOORAKUTTIYIL MATHEW, B-9, SOUTH PARK APARTMENTS, KANNAMKULANGARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
3 RIJO, AGED 46 YEARS,S/O.CHOORAKUTTIYIL MATHEW, KUTTIPUZHA NAGAR, SANKARA IYYER ROAD, THRISSUR DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENTS:/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
1 CHANDRAPRAKASH, AGED 60 YEARS,S/O.NANDILATH PARAMBILGOVINDAN, CHEMBUKKAVU DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK-680001.
2 USHARANI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.NANDILATH PARAMBIL CHANDRAPRAKASH, CHEMBUKKAVU DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK-680001.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.ROBSON PAUL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.08.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev..174/2019, RCRev..177/2019, THE COURT ON 19.09.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 28TH BHADRA, 1941 RCRev..No.177 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2018 IN RCA NO.67/2017 OF III RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2013 IN RCP NO.111/2005 OF RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT:
1 OKTOPALS SPORTS, M.G.ROAD,THRISSUR VILLAGE, TALUK, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER IGNI MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.CHOORAKUTTIYIL MATHEW, B-9, SOUTH PARK APARTMENTS, KANNAMKULANGARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
2 IGNI MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS,S/O.CHOORAKUTTIYIL MATHEW, B-9 SOUTH PARK APRTMENTS, KANNAMKULANGARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
3 MARY PATHROSE, AGED 48 YEARS,W/O.CHOORAKUTTIYIL IGNI, B-9, SOUTH PARK APARTMENTS, KANNAMKULANGARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENTS:/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
1 CHANDRAPRAKASH, AGED 60 YEARS,S/O.NANDILATH PARAMBIL GOVINDAN, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK-680001.
2 USHARANI, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.NANDILATH PARAMBIL CHANDRAPRAKASH, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK-680001.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.ROBSON PAUL THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.08.2019, ALONG WITH RCRev..174/2019, RCRev..175/2019, THE COURT ON 19.09.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.HARIPRASAD & T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R Nos.174, 175 & 177 of 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2019
COMMON ORDER
T.V.ANILKUMAR J.
Petitioners in revision are the tenants, who suffered concurrent common orders of eviction before the Rent Control Court, Thrissur in R.C.P. Nos.111, 113 and 117 of 2005 as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in R.C.A. Nos.67, 68 and 69 of 2017 under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1965 (for short 'the Act'). The respondents, who claim to be the landlords sought eviction of the tenants under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act also, but it was refused by the Rent Control Court and the order has become final, since the respondents have not filed any appeal challenging the same.
2. The tenants are Partnership Firms dealing in sale of sports equipments occupying tenanted rooms in the first floor of Nandilath Towers, which was formerly called as 'Empire Building'. The Nandilath Building has three floors, of which, a few rooms in the first floor are in the possession of revision petitioners, while rest of the rooms are in the possession of some other tenants and a Partnership Firm alleged to be constituted in the names of respondents and their two children called as 'Nandilath Fridge Centre'. The respondents are husband and wife. They purchased Nandilath towers under Ext.A1 sale deed in the year 2003 from the previous landlords with whom the revision petitioners and other tenants commenced their tenancy. The respondents claim to be conducting in their individual names, a business in sale of electronic home appliances under the name and style 'Nandilath Electronics' at a few places in the State. The 2nd respondent claims that she is conducting 'Nandilath Electronics' in her individual name in 'Marwa Arcade Building' in Thrissur municipal town itself, after having taken a portion of the building on monthly rent.
3. Her case is that, she wants to develop her business and for that purpose, bona fide needs to shift her trade from the rented premises to her own building in the first floor after evicting all the tenants, including the revision petitioners. According to her, respondents are not in possession of any vacant rooms in Nandilath Towers suitable for shifting her business from the tenanted building. The third floor is said to be a godown used by Partnership Firm by name 'Nandilath Fridge Centre'. As regards the ground floor also, a portion is said to be in the possession of Nandilath Fridge Centre Firm and the rest in the custody of a few other tenants.
4. The respondents while admitting their status as tenants contended that there is no landlord and tenant relationship with the respondents notwithstanding their having taken Ext.A1 sale deed in joint names from the previous landlords with whom revision petitioners' tenancy commenced. According to them, Nandilath Towers is a Partnership Firm, which is collecting rent from the tenants occupying the building. The alleged bona fide need of the 2nd respondent was denied by revision petitioners in their counter statement. According to them, the 2nd respondent is not conducting any sort of business in Marwa Arcade and the need set up is only a ruse for eviction. It is also contended that the first floor of Nandilath Towers is not sufficient and suitable for shifting the alleged electronic business of the 2nd respondent from the rented premises. Revision petitioners further contend that they do not have any alternative buildings in the locality to shift their business and further, the members of the Firms are depending for their livelihood on the income derived from the business of the Firms.
5. The Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority considered the disputed questions, as to the landlord-tenant relationship between parties, the bona fide need urged by the respondents and also the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act claimed by the Tenants/ Firms.
6. The Rent Control Court examined the 2nd respondent as PW.1 and admitted Exts.A1 to A23 in evidence. Commission report pr
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
