Viuu

BEFORE THE HONBLE RENT CONTROLE AAPPELLAT AUTHORITY
(DISTRICT COURT) KOZHIKODE
RCA 2015
Between:
Ajayan, aged 40 years,
S/o. Chalil Moothoran, Chooram Kallil,
Appellant/Respondent
Punnasserry amsom desom,
P.O. Punnassery, Kozhikode Taluk.
1. Kunhaiyamu, aged 62 years,

S/o.Ahammed Haji, Machil Meethal House,
Narikuni Village, Parannoor desom,
Kozhikode Taluk. Respondents
2. Mariyakutty, aged about 65 years,

W/o. Muhammed Haji,
Machil Meethal House, Narikuni Village,
Parannoor desom, Kozhikode Taluk.
Appeal filed against the judgment of the Hon,ble Rent

controller/additional Munsiff Court-I, Kozhikode dated 30.09.2015
in RCP. 142/2014.
Between:
1. Kunhaiyamu, aged 62 years,

S/o.Ahammed Haji, Machil Meethal House,
Narikuni Village, Parannoor desom,
Kozhikode Taluk. Petitioners
2. Mariyakutty, aged about 65 years,

W/o. Muhammed Haji,
Machil Meethal House, Narikuni Village,
Parannoor desom, Kozhikode Taluk.
And:
Ajayan, aged 40 years,
S/o. Chalil Moothoran, Chooram Kallil, Respondent
Punnasserry amsom desom,
P.O. Punnassery, Kozhikode Taluk.
Appeal filed by the respondent in RCP. 142/2014 under
Section 18 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of
1965.
1. The address of the appellant for the service of

summons process etc from this Hon’ble court is as shown above
in the cause title.
2. The address of the respondent for the service of

summons, process etc form this Hon’ble court is as shown in the
cause title.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case of the petitioner in RCP. 142/2014 is that the

petition schedule room belongs to the petitioners and it was
leased out to the respondent (in RCP. 142/2014) vide agreement
dated 01.06.1997 for a monthly rent of Rs, 2400/-. Rent was in
arrears from January 2014. The first petitioner in RCP. 142/2014 is
the husband of second petitioner and he is dependent on second
petitioner. The first petitioner wants to start a stationary , snacks
and cool bar business. They are not having any other room vacant
for this purpose and the respondent (appellant herein) is not
conducting any business and sub let the premises without the
knowledge and consent of the landlord, the second petitioner. And
the respondent is having another shop room near petition
schedule shop room. And so the respondent should put the
petitioner in vacant possession of the petition schedule shop
room.
Hence the petitioner filed RCP 142/2014 U/ss. 11(2) (b),
11(3), 11 (4) (ii) and 11 (4) (iii) of Act 2 of 1965.
The respondent (appellant herein) resisted the demand with

contentions that, there is no arrears of rent as the petitioners
refused to accept the rent and the respondent is conducting a
business in fancy items and which is his family’s sole livelihood.
Furthermore, the first petitioner has several immovable property
in his own ownership and is having huge income also. His children
are working abroad and the room has not been sublet by the
respondent.
After trial, the petition was allowed with cost U/s. 11 (2) (b)
and 11 (3) directing the respondent to put the petitioner in
vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room within one
month fom the date of order and interest at the rate of 6% per
annum was also allowed as arrears of rent.
Against this Order, this appellant craves the leave of this

Hon’ble court to institute the above appeal on the following
among other :-
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. The order of eviction U/s. 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) by the

lower court is wrong contrary to law and weight of evidence.
2. The lower court ought to have dismissed the RCP and

lower court have erred is allowing the petition U/s. 11 (2) (b) and
11 (3) of the Act 2 of 1965.
3. The lower court ought to have found that the

petitioners do not bonafide needs the building for 1st petitioner’s
occupation and he is not dependent on his wife, the second
petitioner.
4. The lower court ought to have seen that the appellant is

depending the income derived from the business conducted by
him in the petition schedule room from this livelihood.
5. The lower court ought to have found that thr this is no

other suitable building available in the locality from the appellant
to carry on his business.
6. The lower court ought to have found that the intention

of the petitioner/respondent is to let out the room to some other
person for increased rent.
7. The lower court ought to have filed that the

respondents herein have refused to accept the rent and hence S.
11(2) (b) is not applicable in the case.
8. The lower court ought to have considered Ext. B1 in its

correct perspective.
9. The lower court ought to have found that the petitioner

have not proved the bonafide need claimed by them.
10. The lower court ough to have found that there is no

othr building available in the locality which is fit for the business
of appellant.
11. The lower court ought to have found that the appellant
is entitled to the benefit of two provisions of section 11(3).
12. The lower court ought to have found that the

petitioners (respondent herein) have not proved there is claim
u/s.11(2) (b) and 11 (3) with sufficient evidence and same
contradiction and omission in his evidence on this aspect were
not property weighted also.
13. The lower court ought to have realized the helpless of

the poor tenant with physically inability.
14. The lower court ought to have dismissed the RCP.

142/2014.
For the reason stated above and also for the reason which
will be urged during arguments, it is humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble court may be pleased to receive this appeal and file and
set aside the impugned order passed by the lower court in RCP.
142/2014 dated 30.09.2015.
Court Fee payable and paid U/s. 7 (4) (iii)
of the Kerala building (Lease and Rent Control)
Rules 1959 - Rs. 5.00
Certified copy of the order appealed against is produced herewith.
Dated this the 9th day of December

2015
Counsel of the appellant

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
KOZHIKODE
OP(MV): /2015
Applicants
Appu Nair, Aged 83 years, S/o.
Konakkeri, P.O. Elathur, Kozhikode-673303.
Karthiyayani, aged 77 years, W/o. Appu Nair,
Konakkeri, P.O. Elathur, Kozhikode-673303
Vigila, Aged 29 years, W/o. Late. Vinod
Alan Karthik, aged 6 years, (minor) represented by mother Vigila,

AND:
Dharmaraj.K.M, S/o. Sadanandan.K.M, 'Sudharma', Thalikunnu

Road, Mankavu.P.O, Kozhikode-673007. (Reg. owener of the Car
bearing No. KL-11-AS- 6399)
Adhul Dharmaraj, S/o. K.M.Dharmaraj, 'Sudharma', Thalikunnu,

Mankavu.P.O, Kozhikode-673007 (Driver of the vehicle No. KL-11-
AS- 6399)
National Insurance Co. Ltd, Noor Complex, Mavoor Road,

Arayedathupalam, Kozhikode (Insurer of the vehicle Reg. No. KL-
11-AS-6399) (Policy No. 570300/31/14/6100024050 (Validity
07.09.2014 to 06.09.2015)
Application filed under Section 140and 166 of the Motor Vehicle

Act 1988 for compensation*
We, (1) Appu Nair, Aged 83 years, S/o. ,

Konakkeri, P.O. Elathur, Kozhikode-673303 (2) Karthiyayani, aged
77 years, W/o. Appu Nair, Konakkeri, P.O. Elathur, Kozhikode-
673303 and (3) Vigila, Aged 29 years, W/o. Late. Vinod, Konakkeri,
P.O. Elathur, Kozhikode-673303, do hereby apply for the grand of
compensation on account of death of by Sri.Vinod, S/o. AppuNair,
who died was in the motor vehicle acident.

Viuu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Viuu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Viuu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE HONBLE RENT CONTROLE AAPPELLAT AUTHORITY

(DISTRICT COURT) KOZHIKODE

1. Kunhaiyamu, aged 62 years,

2. Mariyakutty, aged about 65 years,

Appeal filed against the judgment of the Hon,ble Rent

1. Kunhaiyamu, aged 62 years,

2. Mariyakutty, aged about 65 years,

1. The address of the appellant for the service of

2. The address of the respondent for the service of

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case of the petitioner in RCP. 142/2014 is that the

The respondent (appellant herein) resisted the demand with

Against this Order, this appellant craves the leave of this

1. The order of eviction U/s. 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3) by the

2. The lower court ought to have dismissed the RCP and

3. The lower court ought to have found that the

4. The lower court ought to have seen that the appellant is

5. The lower court ought to have found that thr this is no

6. The lower court ought to have found that the intention

7. The lower court ought to have filed that the

8. The lower court ought to have considered Ext. B1 in its

9. The lower court ought to have found that the petitioner

10. The lower court ough to have found that there is no

12. The lower court ought to have found that the

13. The lower court ought to have realized the helpless of

14. The lower court ought to have dismissed the RCP.

Court Fee payable and paid U/s. 7 (4) (iii)

of the Kerala building (Lease and Rent Control)

Rules 1959 - Rs. 5.00

Certified copy of the order appealed against is produced herewith.

Dated this the 9th day of December

Counsel of the appellant

Appu Nair, Aged 83 years, S/o.

Konakkeri, P.O. Elathur, Kozhikode-673303.

Karthiyayani, aged 77 years, W/o. Appu Nair,

Konakkeri, P.O. Elathur, Kozhikode-673303

Vigila, Aged 29 years, W/o. Late. Vinod

Konakkeri, P.O. Elathur, Kozhikode-673303

Alan Karthik, aged 6 years, (minor) represented by mother Vigila,

Dharmaraj.K.M, S/o. Sadanandan.K.M, 'Sudharma', Thalikunnu

Adhul Dharmaraj, S/o. K.M.Dharmaraj, 'Sudharma', Thalikunnu,

National Insurance Co. Ltd, Noor Complex, Mavoor Road,

Application filed under Section 140and 166 of the Motor Vehicle

We, (1) Appu Nair, Aged 83 years, S/o. ,

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.