Kerala High Court
Ittammal Abdulla vs Dainabi on 5 June, 2012
Author: A. V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
&
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/26TH ASWINA 1934
RP.No.913 of 2012
------------------------
(AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCR.193/2010 DATED 05-06-2012)
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/REVIEW PETITIONES:
-----------------------------------------
1. ITTAMMAL ABDULLA, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O. T.M.KUNHAMMAD, GUARDER VALAPPIL, BELLA VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. ITTAMMAL HASSAN K.AHAMMED @ MOILAKIRIRIATH HASSAN ,
AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.T.M.KUNHAMMAD, GUARDER VALAPPIL,
BELLA VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
3. ITTAMMAL HAMSA @ MOILAKIRIYATH HAMSA, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.T.M.KUNHAMMAD, GUARDER VALAPPIL, BELLA VILLAGE
HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
-------------------------
DAINABI, W/O.N.M.AHAMMED,
RESIDING AT GUARDER VALAPPIL
KOTTACHERY, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
R.P.No.913 of 2012
in
R.C.R.No.193 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2012
ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
Mr. Suresh Kumar Kodoth, learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that this Court while allowing the revision and ordering eviction did not direct the tenant to discharge the entire arrears of rent, as is normally done. On account of that, the tenant did not pay the rent which had admittedly fallen due in respect of the building.
2. Mr. T.K.Vipindas the learned counsel for the tenant would submit that on 10/10/2012 (interestingly, after receiving the notice on the present review petition) has paid the entire arrears of rent. Mr. Kodoth submitted that what has been paid though belatedly is only the actual rent in arrears. The interest payable at the statutory rate of 6% per annum is yet to be paid.
3. We are of the view that the respondent has to pay the interest also. We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay a sum of `10.822.50 (the RP No.913/2012 in RCR.No.193/2010 -:2:- interest amount) to the review petitioners, either directly or through their counsel appearing in this Court within two weeks from today and produce receipt before the execution court. We make it clear that unless such receipt is filed, the respondent will not get the benefit of time which we allowed under our original order.
The Review Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/-
A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE krj