Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34424
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, A.M.BABU, JJ
KAITHAYIL ANILKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SHINIJA – Respondent
OP (RENT CONTROL) 136/2016
Important Points
Subject
Rent Law - Eviction Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Eviction - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3); Code of Civil Procedure, Section 10 - The court ruled that the Rent Control Petition does not qualify for stay under Section 10 as it is not a suit.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a Rent Control Petition for eviction against the petitioner, who claimed he was not the tenant of the respondent but of the previous owner. The petitioner sought to stay the Rent Control Petition until the resolution of a related civil suit pending in another court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for stay was correctly dismissed as the Rent Control Petition is not a suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence does not warrant a stay.
Issues: Whether the Rent Control Petition could be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure while a related civil suit was pending?
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the criteria for a stay under Section 10 were not met since the issues in the Rent Control Petition were neither directly nor substantially in issue in the civil suit.
Final Decision: The O.P.(R.C.) is dismissed due to lack of merit.
JUDGMENT
K.T.Sankaran, J.
The respondent filed R.C.P.No.131 of 2015, on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode (Additional Munsiff Court - I, Kozhikode), against the petitioner for eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act . In the Rent Control Petition, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.1367 of 2016 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to stay the Rent Control Petition till the disposal of O.S.No.421 of 2013 pending before the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode. The court below dismissed that application against which the petitioner tenant has filed this O.P.(R.C.).
O.P.(R.C.) No.136/16 2
2. The Rent Control Petition was filed by Shinija against the petitioner Anilkumar. Shinija traces title in respect of the petition schedule building from one Ali. The case of the petitioner herein is that he is not the tenant of Shinija, but he is a tenant under Ali. According to the petitioner, Ali agreed to sell the property to the tenant and received some advance. Since Ali did not execute the transfer deed, the petitioner tenant filed O.S.No.421 of 2013 referred to above. That suit is pending and till the disposal of that suit, the Rent Control Petition is sought to be stayed.
3. To attract the ingredients of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure , the proceeding sought to be stayed should be a suit. Here the proceeding sought to be stayed is the Rent Control Petition. As rightly held by the court below, it cannot be said that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the O.P.(R.C.) No.136/16 3 suit is the matter directly and substantially in issue in the Rent Control Petition. The court below rightly held that the ingredients of of the are not satisfied and therefore, dismissed the application.
4. The order passed by the court below is legal and proper. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order or proceedings.
The O.P.(R.C.) lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE A.M.BABU JUDGE
