IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15910 of 2009(G)
1. K.M.SEETHI, AGED 47 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUNNATH MOHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, S/O.MOIDEEN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) .No. 15910 OF 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.
The tenant has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India seeking stay of all further proceedings in
R.C.P.No.38/2008 filed by the respondent/landlord against him
invoking the eviction ground under Section 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965
till such time as an earlier suit O.S.No.295/2008 filed by him against
the landlord is disposed of. As indicated above, the prayer made in the
writ petition is akin to the relief under Section 10 of Code of Civil
Procedure. If the averments in the writ petition are correct, the writ
petitioner has a good reason for not conducting business in the subject
building. The allegation is that the respondent landlord by refusing to
issue consent for licence and also by refusing to issue a consent letter
to the KSEB in the matter of facilitating electrical service connection to
the building has created a situation of preventing the petitioner from
carrying on business. The suit is filed by the petitioner alleging that the
LAA.No.15910/09 2
respondent is trying to evict the petitioner forcibly and seeking an
injunction restraining such forcible eviction. The present allegation is
that during the pendency of the suit, the RCP has been filed invoking
the solitary ground of cessation of occupation.
2. We have heard Sri.K.K.Mohammed Ravuf, learned counsel
for the petitioner in detail. According to Sri.Mohammed Ravuf, since
Section 10 of the CPC does not in strict sense to apply to proceedings
before the Rent Control court, it is necessary that this court invokes the
constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and ensure that
the respondent landlord is not able to reap the benefit of a situation
which is of his own making.
3. Even though the submissions of Sri.Ravuf were not totally
unattractive, we are of the view that the relief sought for in this writ
petition cannot be granted. Eviction ground under Section 11(4)(v) is
made out only when it is established by the landlord before the rent
control court that the tenant has without any reasonable cause ceased to
occupy the building continuously for more than six months. As already
indicated, if the causes mentioned by the petitioner for not being able to
LAA.No.15910/09 3
start the building are true, the same will constitute reasonable cause in
the context of ground under Section 11(4)(v). It is open to the
petitioner to resist the RCP by raising all available contentions and by
producing relevant documents including the documents produced in
this case and the documents pertaining to the suit already on file and
convince the rent control court that he had a good cause for not being
able to start business in the building.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI
JUDGE
sv.
LAA.No.15910/09 4