IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 655 of 2010()
1. KRISHNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PONNU PANICKER SASIDHARAN AND OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :10/12/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.655 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010.
ORDER
Respondent No.1 appears through counsel.
2. This revision is preferred by the petitioner in E.A.No.725 of 2010 in
E.P.No.114 of 2010 in O.S.No.395 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional
Munsiff-I, Neyyattinkara. Respondent No.1 has obtained a decree for recovery
of possession of the suit property on the strength of his title against respondent
Nos.2 to 4 who are legal representatives of the deceased defendant. It was the
case of respondent No.1 that deceased defendant trespassed into the suit
property. The decree has been confirmed by this Court in R.S.A.No.713 of 2010.
In execution of the decree, petitioner claimed to be a tenant under Act 2 of 1965
having obtained the shoproom in question on rent from deceased defendant on
09.07.1996. Petitioner filed E.A.No.725 of 2010 claiming that there shall not be
physical delivery against him as he is a building tenant entitled to the protection
of Act 2 of 1965. Though petitioner produced Ext.A1, series, executing court
found that those documents purported to be rent receipts were only for the
period from 05.01.2010 to 06.06.2010 are not sufficient to prove the alleged
tenancy on 09.07.1996 and dismissed E.A.No.725 of 2010. That order is under
challenge.
3. Though various contentions are raised in this revision petition as to
the correctness of the order learned counsel for petitioner has not pursued
CRP No.655/2010
2
those contentions before me. Learned counsel submitted that respondent
Nos.2 to 4 have preferred S.L.P.No.34760 of 2010 in the Supreme Court against
judgment and decree of this Court in R.S.A.No.713 of 2010 and that the Special
Leave Petition is coming up for hearing on this day. Learned counsel states that
if the Supreme Court granted stay of execution and if in the meantime petitioner
is evicted from the shoproom he will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
Petitioner therefore requested that until the matter is decided by the Supreme
Court, the physical delivery of possession of the room may be prevented. I have
heard learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well. Learned counsel submits
that it has been concurrently found in favour of respondent No.1 that he is the
title holder of property and that deceased defendant was a trespasser in the
property in which case even if a tenancy was created by deceased defendant,
that cannot in any way affect respondent No.1 and his right to get vacant
possession of the property.
4. Now correctness of the impugned order is not challenged before
me and hence it is not necessary to go into the rival contentions. The only
request made by learned counsel is to keep in abeyance physical delivery in
respect of the shoproom occupied by petitioner until the Supreme Court passed
orders in the application for stay in the Special Leave Petition. Learned counsel
for respondent No.1 has agreed not to take physical delivery of the room
occupied by petitioner for a period of one month or until the Supreme Court
passed appropriate orders on the application for stay of execution, whichever is
earlier. That undertaking is recorded.
CRP No.655/2010
3
Resultantly this petition is disposed of recording undertaking
made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 will not take
physical delivery of the shoproom occupied by petitioner for a period of one
month from this day or till the Supreme Court passed orders on the application
for stay in the Special Leave Petition, whichever is earlier.
I.A.No.3088 of 2010 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks