Kerala High Court
Phillamma George vs Sara Christy Alex
Author: K.Abraham Mathew
Bench: K.Abraham Mathew
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/10TH PHALGUNA, 1937
OP(C).No. 523 of 2016 (O)
---------------------------------------
E.P.NO.57/2015 IN R.C.P.NO.1/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD/RENT
CONTROL COURT, HARIPAD
--------------------
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLAMMA GEORGE, AGED 51 YEARS,
KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE, CHEKKIDIKKADU MURI,
THAKAZHI VILLAGE, PROPRIETOR HOLY TRINTY MEDICALS,
ALMPALLIYIL BUILDING, NEAR K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND,
HARIPAD P.O., HARIPAD, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SARA CHRISTY ALEX, DATED 48 YEARS,
W/O.ALEX ABRAHAM, ALAMPALLYIL HOUSE,
KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT VALYAKALAYIL HOUSE, ANGADI VILLAGE,
RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT- 686 506.
BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-02-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
OP(C).No. 523 of 2016 (O)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
----------------------------------------
EXT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2014 IN
RCP 1/2013 IN THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT, HARIPAD.
EXT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2015 IN
SLP(C) NO.3344/2015 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME
COURT.
EXT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE E.P NO.57/2015 IN RCP 1/2013
DATED 25/11/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE
THE MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD.
EXT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP(C)NO.107/2016 BEFORE
THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 12/01/2016.
EXT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE EXECUTION PETITIONER DATED 15/01/2016.
EXT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE WITNESS SCHEDULE.
EXT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN EA(UNNUMBERED)
DATED 28/01/2016 FOR ACCEPTING EXT P6.
EXT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EP NO.57/15 IN RCP NO.1/2013
DATED 18/02/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, HARIPAD.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
---------------------------------------
O.P.(C). No.523 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was the tenant of the building belonging to the respondent. An order of eviction was passed in favour of the respondent. It has become final. The order passed in R.C.R.No.112 of 2015 this court observed in paragraph 9 :
"As a last submission, the counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to vacate the premises pointing out that, the process of identifying a suitable room for shifting the business and transferring the licence and permissions necessary for conduct of the business would take some time. The request of the tenant is opposed by the counsel for the petitioner. Having considered the rival contentions, we are satisfied that it is necessary to grant some time to the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of the premises. We accordingly grant time to the tenant up to 31.12.2015 to surrender vacant possession of the premises on condition that, the petitioner files an affidavit before the Rent Control Court, Haripad in RCP No.1 of 2010 undertaking to surrender vacant possession of the shop room to the landlady on or before 31.12.2015, within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be a further direction that the tenant makes payment of all arrears of rent, if any remaining unpaid and continues to pay the rent in respect of the premises regularly, without any delay or default until vacant possession is surrendered. It is made clear that, in the event of the tenant committing default in complying with O.P.(C). No.523 of 2016 2 any of the above conditions, she shall forfeit the benefit of these directions and that the respondent shall be at liberty to seek vacant possession of the premises in accordance with law."
In the execution proceedings the petitioner raised some objections. But overruling them the court has ordered delivery of the building. This is challenged.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioner did not comply with the direction of the division bench in the order mentioned above. The building was situated in a Panchayat. Now it has become a Municipality. The objection of the petitioner is that this has made the order of eviction unexecutable. This objection is not even worthy of notice. The learned Munsiff rightly overruled her objection. Now, she wants further time to vacate the building. It is not at all reasonable to grant her further time.
In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm