P.V.Abdul Hakkim vs Arikothen Remavathi on 16 October, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 887 of 2009()


1. P.V.ABDUL HAKKIM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ARIKOTHEN REMAVATHI,D/O.SARADA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAMESHKUMAR,S/O.SARADA, -DO- -DO-

3. RANJITH KUMAR,D/O.SARADA, -DO- -DO-

4. AMERNATH,D/O.SARADA, -DO- -DO-

5. AMERLEKHA,D/O.SARADA, -DO- -DO-

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.PREMCHAND

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :16/10/2009

 O R D E R
      PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, JJ.
            ------------------------------------------
          RP. No. 887 of 2009 in RCR. No. 68 of 2009
            -------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009

                           O R D E R

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

Even though the learned counsel for the review

petitioner addressed us very persuasively and extensively

we don’t find any warrant for invocation of this Court’s

jurisdiction for review of it’s orders and judgments. What is

urged is that this Court did not advert to the contentions of

the review petitioner made in the context of sub-section (9)

of Section 11. The above ground is contrary to facts. We

have certainly dealt with the contention based on Section 11

(9) of Act 2 of 1965 in paragraph 4 of our judgment. We

have observed that this Court will not be able to

countenance any lease providing for a period of more than

one year unless the same is evidenced by a registered

instrument. The other point which is urged, is that

principles of estoppel were involved in the RCP. The

RP. No. 887/09

– 2 –

argument was that the tenant had expended Rs.10 lakhs for

effecting improvements to the building in question. This the

tenant did with the knowledge of the landlord and therefore

the landlord is estopped from evicting the tenant. We don’t

think that the above point, which is to a certain extent a

point of fact also, not seen raised specifically by the tenant

review petitioner before the authorities below should be

allowed to be raised. Moreover, we don’t find any evidence

adduced by the review petitioner for substantiating the

above point that so much of money has been expended and

that too with the concurrence or knowledge of the landlord.

The RP will stand dismissed. No costs.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

ksv/-