{"id":10312,"date":"2010-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-07T00:24:58","modified_gmt":"2015-03-06T18:54:58","slug":"brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 166 of 2006()\n\n\n1. BRIJEETH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. OUSEPH, DO.    DO.\n3. THOMAS, DO.   DO.\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KOCHANTHONY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MATHAI M PAIKADAY(SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :05\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n      PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n     ---------------------------------------------------------\n        RCR. Nos.140, 141, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169,\n        170, 171, 177, 179, 194, 196 & 197 of 2006\n      ------------------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenants are in revision being aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering<\/p>\n
eviction against them on the ground of bona fide need for<\/p>\n
own occupation under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of<\/p>\n
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to for short as the Act).        The original landlord\/<\/p>\n
petitioner in the rent control petitions is no more and is<\/p>\n
survived by his legal heirs who have been impleaded as<\/p>\n
additional respondents 2 to 8 in these revision petitions.<\/p>\n
The original landlord instituted rent control petition Nos.100,<\/p>\n
101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116,<\/p>\n
117, 118, 119, 120, 131 and 132 of 1987 against the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners and four other tenants in occupation of<\/p>\n
the buildings described in the schedule of the respective<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                                  – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
\nrent control petitions they being portions of the original<\/p>\n
family house of the landlord and appurtenant structures<\/p>\n
being structures put up subsequently as extensions of the<\/p>\n
original family house or put up adjacent to the existing<\/p>\n
structures.       Significantly, the 18 buildings or building<\/p>\n
portions which are subject matter of the rent control<\/p>\n
petitions occupied a plot which has roughly 5.25 cents (2300<\/p>\n
sq. ft.) of land. The contract rent payable by the tenants for<\/p>\n
their respective portions possessed by them was paltry<\/p>\n
amounts ranging between Rs.10\/- per mensem and<\/p>\n
Rs.150\/- per mensem. RCR. No. 140 of 2006 pertains to<\/p>\n
RCP. No. 131 of 1987 which relates to an area of 75 sq. ft.<\/p>\n
used by the revision petitioner therein for sale of<\/p>\n
spectacles. The contract rent in respect of that portion is<\/p>\n
Rs.25\/- per mensem.         RCR. No. 141 of 2006 pertains to<\/p>\n
RCP. No. 100 of 1987. The area involved in that RCP is 150<\/p>\n
sq. ft. and the revision petitioner therein is conducting<\/p>\n
tailoring business paying a monthly rent of Rs.30\/-. RCR.<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                                – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
\nNo. 196 of 2006 pertains to RCP. No. 102 of 1987 used<\/p>\n
presently by the legal heirs of the tenant therein as a<\/p>\n
godown paying a monthly rent of Rs.50\/-. RCR. No. 171 of<\/p>\n
2006 pertains to RCP. No. 104 of 1987 which is in respect of<\/p>\n
the staircase room in the tarwad house and in that room<\/p>\n
presently the legal heirs of the tenant are conducting sale of<\/p>\n
lottery tickets paying a monthly rent of Rs.25\/-. RCR. No.<\/p>\n
164 of 2006 pertains to RCP No. 105 of 1987 where the area<\/p>\n
is 50 sq. ft. The tenant therein is conducting a telephone<\/p>\n
booth and selling cool drinks        paying a monthly rent of<\/p>\n
Rs.50\/-. RCR. No. 177 of 2006 pertaining to RCP No.106 of<\/p>\n
1987 is in respect of an area of 50 sq. ft. the tenant therein<\/p>\n
is selling rice gruel (Kanji) paying a monthly rent of Rs.40\/-.<\/p>\n
RCR. No. 166 of 2006 pertains to RCP. No. 110 of 1987<\/p>\n
which is in respect of an area of 30 sq. ft. where soda<\/p>\n
manufacturing is conducted by the tenant on a monthly<\/p>\n
rental of Rs.20\/-. RCR. No. 179 of 2006 relates to RCP. No.<\/p>\n
113 of 1987 which is in respect of an area of 25 sq. ft.<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                              – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwhere the tenant is conducting a Thattukada paying a<\/p>\n
monthly rental of Rs.50\/-. RCR. No. 194 of 2006 relates<\/p>\n
RCP. No. 114 of 1987 which is in respect of an area of 20<\/p>\n
sq. ft. where the tenant is conducting the work of repairing<\/p>\n
locks paying a monthly rental of Rs.25\/-. RCR. No. 197 of<\/p>\n
2006 relates to RCP. No. 115 of 1987 which is in respect of<\/p>\n
an area of 40 sq. ft. where the tenant makes appam and<\/p>\n
noolappam paying a monthly rent of Rs.30\/-. RCR. No. 169<\/p>\n
of 2006 pertains to RCP. No. 119 of 1987 which is in respect<\/p>\n
of an area of having two rooms of 20 sq. ft. each (one a part<\/p>\n
of the tarwad building and one outside) where the tenant<\/p>\n
sells tea and snacks paying a monthly rental of Rs.60\/-.<\/p>\n
RCR. No. 168 of 2006 relates to RCP No. 132 of 1987 which<\/p>\n
pertains to two rooms, one inside the tarwad building and<\/p>\n
one outside, each of 30 sq. ft. where the tenant conducts<\/p>\n
akri business paying a monthly rental of Rs.150\/-. RCR. No.<\/p>\n
167 of 2006 relates to RCP. No. 116 of 1987 which is in<\/p>\n
respect of       an area of 70 sq. ft. where the tenant is<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
\nconducting tailoring machine repair paying a monthly rental<\/p>\n
of Rs.10\/-. RCR. No. 170 of 2006 pertains to RCP. No. 120<\/p>\n
of 1987 which is in respect of 60 sq. ft. of area where the<\/p>\n
tenant is conducting soda manufacturing paying a monthly<\/p>\n
rental of Rs.50\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     2. It will be noticed immediately that RCR. Nos. 171 of<\/p>\n
2006, 169 of 2006, 168 of 2006 and 141 of 2006 pertain to<\/p>\n
portions of the main tarwad building. In RCR. No. 169 of<\/p>\n
2006 the tenant has two rooms, one in the tarwad and one<\/p>\n
outside and in RCR. No. 168 of 2006 also the tenants have<\/p>\n
two rooms one in the tarwad and one outside.<\/p>\n
     3. The rent control petitions were instituted in the year<\/p>\n
1987 by the landlord, a retired employee of the postal<\/p>\n
department invoking the ground of arrears of rent [under<\/p>\n
Section 11(2)(b)] and the ground of own occupation under<\/p>\n
subsection (3) of Section 11. It was submitted at the Bar<\/p>\n
that since the contract rent is nominal and orders of eviction<\/p>\n
passed on the ground of arrears of rent are provisional in<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe sense that they can be got vacated by making the<\/p>\n
requisite deposits under section 11(2)(c) it is sufficient that<\/p>\n
we consider the claim for eviction on the ground under<\/p>\n
subsection (3) of Section 11, viz., bona fide need for own<\/p>\n
occupation. The need projected by the landlord was that he<\/p>\n
should have vacant possession of the premises which are<\/p>\n
subject matter of these rent control petitions         for the<\/p>\n
purpose of residence with family urging that he was at that<\/p>\n
time residing in a rented premises situated to the back side<\/p>\n
of Stanly Institute where his wife was conducting a<\/p>\n
Typewriting Institute. It was the case of the landlord that<\/p>\n
he or any other member of his family had no other building<\/p>\n
of their own in their possession where they could set up<\/p>\n
residence.      The tenants filed counter statements raising<\/p>\n
homologous contentions. It was contended that the need is<\/p>\n
not bona fide, that the landlord’s case that he has no other<\/p>\n
building of his own for starting residence is not correct, that<\/p>\n
even after eviction notice was issued the landlord has sold<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
\naway other buildings belonging to him, that the petition<\/p>\n
schedule premises is not suitable for the residential<\/p>\n
purposes of the landlord, and that the tenants are entitled<\/p>\n
for the protection of the second proviso to subsection (3) of<\/p>\n
Section 11. The Rent Control Court consolidated all the rent<\/p>\n
control petitions and tried them jointly.   The evidence at<\/p>\n
trial consisted on the side of the landlord of Exts.A1 to A45<\/p>\n
and the oral evidence of the landlord as PW1. On the side<\/p>\n
of the tenants the same consisted of Exts.B1 to B14 and oral<\/p>\n
evidence of various tenants as Rws. 1 to 19. The report<\/p>\n
submitted by an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the<\/p>\n
Court for local inspection was marked in evidence as Ext.<\/p>\n
C1. The Rent Control Court by common order dated 27-8-<\/p>\n
1990 held that the need projected by the landlord was not<\/p>\n
bona fide and ordered eviction on the ground of arrears of<\/p>\n
rent only. The court however, held that the tenants are not<\/p>\n
entitled to the protection of the second proviso to subsection<\/p>\n
(3) of Section 11. However, in view of the finding that the<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                                – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
\nneed is not bona fide, order of eviction was declined on the<\/p>\n
ground of bona fide own occupation. The landlord preferred<\/p>\n
appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
Appeals were dismissed confirming the order of the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court. The landlord preferred revision to this court.<\/p>\n
This court by order dated 5-7-2000 remanded all the rent<\/p>\n
control petitions to the Rent Control Court for reconsidering<\/p>\n
the claim of the landlord for eviction under subsection (3)<\/p>\n
of Section 11.       While doing so, this court confirmed the<\/p>\n
concurrent findings of the Rent Control Court and the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority that the tenants have not established<\/p>\n
their claim for protection of the second proviso to subsection<\/p>\n
(3) of Section 11. Under the remand order both sides were<\/p>\n
given opportunity to adduce further evidence they may want<\/p>\n
on the question of bona fide need and on the applicability of<\/p>\n
the first proviso to subsection (3) of Section 11 of the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Act. After remand, PW1 the landlord was recalled<\/p>\n
and examined. He produced Ext. 46 series. RW1, one of<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe tenants was also recalled and examined. He produced<\/p>\n
Exts. B15, B16 and B16(a). The Advocate Commissioner<\/p>\n
filed a further report Ext. C2. The Rent Control Court held<\/p>\n
that the need is bona fide, however, took the view that the<\/p>\n
petition was liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to<\/p>\n
subsection (3) of Section 11. In other words, it was found<\/p>\n
that the landlord had not established special reasons<\/p>\n
justifying an order of eviction despite the landlord being in<\/p>\n
possession of other buildings.         Accordingly an     order<\/p>\n
declining eviction on the ground of bona fide need was<\/p>\n
passed by the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
under the impugned common judgment dated 20-2-2006<\/p>\n
would allow all the 18 rent control appeals filed by the<\/p>\n
landlord reversing the finding of the Rent Control Court. It<\/p>\n
was found that the rent control petitions were not liable to<\/p>\n
fail by virtue of the first proviso to subsection (3) of Section<\/p>\n
11 and accordingly all the tenants were ordered to be<\/p>\n
evicted on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                                – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
\nalso.   Only 14 tenants being aggrieved by the order of<\/p>\n
eviction have filed these revision petitions assailing the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Appellate Authority on various grounds.<\/p>\n
During the pendency of the rent control revision on 8-2-<\/p>\n
2007 the landlord died and upon his demise his legal heirs<\/p>\n
sons   and       daughters  were      impleaded    as  additional<\/p>\n
respondents 2 to 8.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Extensive arguments were addressed before us by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the parties viz., Sri.G.Unnikrishnan,<\/p>\n
Advocate for the revision petitioners tenants and Sri.Mathai<\/p>\n
M.Paikaday, Senior Advocate for the landlord. According to<\/p>\n
Mr.Unnikrishnan the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority is vitiated by illegality, irregularity and impropriety<\/p>\n
as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. He referred to<\/p>\n
the first proviso to subsection (3) of Section 11 and<\/p>\n
submitted that the implications of that proviso were not<\/p>\n
considered properly by the learned Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
Referring to Exts. B15, B16 and B16(a) the learned counsel<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                              – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
\nsubmitted that the first two documents will reveal that at<\/p>\n
the time when the rent control petition was instituted the<\/p>\n
landlord was in possession of a building with three rooms<\/p>\n
and he referred        to the evidence of PW1 in cross<\/p>\n
examination and submitted that the version of the landlord<\/p>\n
was that after getting vacant possession the landlord sold<\/p>\n
away that building.      Such sale can only be after 1999,<\/p>\n
according to the learned counsel and the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
was justified in dismissing the RCP on the reason that the<\/p>\n
landlord had not pleaded or proved any special reason for<\/p>\n
preferring to evict the tenant.     The Rent Control Court’s<\/p>\n
order was in fact in accordance with the first proviso to<\/p>\n
subsection (3) of Section 11 which will show that there is an<\/p>\n
embargo on the power of the Rent Control Court to order<\/p>\n
eviction in the absence of establishment of special reasons<\/p>\n
by the landlord.       This aspect of the matter has been<\/p>\n
overlooked by the Appellate Authority which has ordered<\/p>\n
eviction taking into account the sentimental value for the<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                              – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
\ntarwad building from the landlord’s point of view.      The<\/p>\n
approach of the Appellate Authority is contrary to law,<\/p>\n
according to Mr. Unnikrishnan.\n<\/p>\n
     5. Mr. G. Unnikrishnan highlighted that at any rate the<\/p>\n
need for own occupation projected by the landlord does not<\/p>\n
subsist. According to him, the need pleaded by the landlord<\/p>\n
was his personal need for residing in his tarwad building.<\/p>\n
Now that the landlord is no more, the said need no longer<\/p>\n
subsists. The legal representatives of the landlord who have<\/p>\n
been    impleaded as additional respondents in the RCRs are<\/p>\n
all happily put up in other residential abodes and hence the<\/p>\n
father’s need accepted by the Appellate Authority will not<\/p>\n
survive and enure to their benefit. Mr.Unnikrishnan would<\/p>\n
refer to a catena of decisions starting from the judgment of<\/p>\n
the supreme Court in P.Venkateswarlu v. The Motor &<\/p>\n
General Traders,<\/a> 1975 SC 1409 to support his argument<\/p>\n
that subsequent events have relevance while taking decision<\/p>\n
in rent control proceedings. Mr. Unnikrishnan would lastly<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
\nsubmit that at any rate the projected need of the landlord<\/p>\n
wanting to occupy all the buildings which are subject matter<\/p>\n
of these rent control petitions is highly artificial and cannot<\/p>\n
be bona fide. Such a common ground has been invoked in<\/p>\n
all the rent control petitions with the objective of ensuring<\/p>\n
that all these tenants who are paying only relatively small<\/p>\n
amounts by way of rent are evicted and the landlord is able<\/p>\n
either to sell off all the buildings for very high price or let<\/p>\n
them out to other tenants on high rents. Mr. Unnikrishnan<\/p>\n
submitted that the tarwad building to which only some<\/p>\n
sentimental attachment may be there for the landlord can<\/p>\n
be surrendered readily so that any one among the present<\/p>\n
landlords who is without a building of his own for his<\/p>\n
residence can occupy. The other tenants in occupation of<\/p>\n
the buildings which do not form part of the main tarwad<\/p>\n
building may be allowed to continue. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that those tenants will be prepared to pay any<\/p>\n
reasonable rent which may be tentatively fixed by this court<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                                – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
\nsubject to fixation of fair rent by the Rent Control Court.<\/p>\n
     6. All the submissions of Mr.Unnikrishnan could be<\/p>\n
answered effectively by Sri.Mathai M.Paikaday, learned<\/p>\n
senior counsel for the respondent landlord. In fact before<\/p>\n
arguments were concluded on 8-1-2010 we passed the<\/p>\n
following order:\n<\/p>\n
     “The arguments are almost over. We feel that a point
\n     which arises seriously is one pertaining to the
\n     operation of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of
\n     Section 11 of the Rent Control Act, 1965. Exts.B15 &
\n     B16 will show that during the period from 1988-94 the
\n     landlord was in possession of a building belonging to
\n     him, the door number of which was initially 353 in
\n     Ward No.X and thereafter 1227 in Ward No.X            and
\n     lastly (going by Ext.B16) 569 in Ward No. IX. In the
\n     cross-examination, PW1 was asked regarding the
\n     availability of the above building. His answer was that
\n     as on as he got vacant possession of that building he
\n     sold the same off. The youngest son of PW1 is present
\n     and we enquired of him as to when the above building
\n     was sold by his father and also as to by which
\n     document the sale was effected.        He was unable to
\n     give a specific answer. But he stated that the sale was
\n     by means of one among the documents already
\n     marked as Ext.A46 series. We have made a scrutiny of
\n     the entire Ext. A46 sale deeds. We do not think that
\n     they pertain to the above building (the building
\n     covered by Ext.B16).           Mr.G.Unnikrishnan, learned
\n     counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              – 15 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     revision petitioner does not have a case that the
\n     landlord continues to possess the above building since
\n     the landlord himself admitted that the building is
\n     already sold off. Under the above circumstances we
\n     direct both parties to produce before this court the
\n     certified copy of the sale deed by which PW1 sold the
\n     above building 9the building covered by Ext.B16). Post
\n     on 22-1-2010.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7. It will be noticed that no fresh documents were<\/p>\n
produced by either of the parties and the submissions of the<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel for the respondent landlord was that<\/p>\n
A46 series of 10 sale deeds are the only sale deeds<\/p>\n
executed by the original landlord in respect of buildings<\/p>\n
belonging to him.      He would refer to the commissioners’<\/p>\n
reports C1 and C2 and submit that the building which is<\/p>\n
subject matter of Ext.B16 was at all relevant times<\/p>\n
possessed by a tenant and therefore the said building is not<\/p>\n
liable to be reckoned with for the purpose of the first proviso<\/p>\n
to subsection (3) of Section 11. According to Mr.Paikaday,<\/p>\n
even though the landlord instituted 18 rent control petitions<\/p>\n
in respect of buildings occupied by his tenants including the<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                             – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
\npresent revision petitioners the total area occupied by all<\/p>\n
these buildings is hardly 5.25 cents. The tarwad building<\/p>\n
occupied by the tenant revision petitioners in RCR Nos.<\/p>\n
171\/06, 169\/06, 168\/06 and 141\/06 is the main structure<\/p>\n
and all the other buildings and the buildings which are<\/p>\n
subject matter of the other rent control revisions are<\/p>\n
relatively small structures.    In order that a reasonably<\/p>\n
convenient residence is possible it is necessary that the<\/p>\n
landlord gets possession of all the buildings which are<\/p>\n
subject matter of all the RCPs. Meeting the argument of<\/p>\n
Mr.Unnikrishnan that the need projected by the landlord no<\/p>\n
longer subsists and that the need for own occupation under<\/p>\n
subsection (3) of Section 11 should subsist till the<\/p>\n
culmination of the proceedings Mr. Paikaday would refer to<\/p>\n
various decisions such as the judgment of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Sakunthala Bai and other v. Narayan Das and<\/p>\n
others (2004) 5 SCC 772, Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir<\/p>\n
B.Goyal<\/a> (2002) 2 SCC 242, Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos.<\/a> 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
\nSrivasthava (2001) 2 SCC 604, and submit that bonafides<\/p>\n
of the need projected by the landlord under Section 11(3)<\/p>\n
has to be decided as on the date of filing of the application.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel submitted that subsequent events are<\/p>\n
to be brought to the notice of the court by raising additional<\/p>\n
pleadings which has not been done in this case by the<\/p>\n
tenants. Landlord may not be penalised for the slowness of<\/p>\n
the legal system.      Landlord is not responsible for the<\/p>\n
inordinate delay of 23 years which has accrued since the<\/p>\n
institution of the RCPs in the present case.<\/p>\n
      8. Mr.Paikaday submitted that it is not correct to say<\/p>\n
that it was for leading a solitary life that the landlord sought<\/p>\n
eviction. Referring to the entirety of the pleadings in the<\/p>\n
RCP and the oral evidence of PW1 as well as the judgment<\/p>\n
of the appellate authority where reference is made to the<\/p>\n
arguments addressed by counsel for both sides, Mr.Paikaday<\/p>\n
submitted that both sides understood that the need<\/p>\n
projected by the landlord was need for residence of himself<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                             – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
\nand his younger son and family. Mr. Paikaday referred to<\/p>\n
paragraph (2) of the statement of facts in the present<\/p>\n
revision petitions and submitted that it is clear from the<\/p>\n
same that the need projected by the landlord was for the<\/p>\n
convenient enjoyment of the landlord and his family.<\/p>\n
According to Mr.Paikaday it is not now open to the tenant to<\/p>\n
contend that the need for own occupation by the son is not<\/p>\n
something pleaded by the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
     9. Answering the arguments of Mr.Unnikrishnan that<\/p>\n
the buildings which are subject matter of rent control<\/p>\n
revision petitions other than RCR. Nos. 171, 169, 168 and<\/p>\n
141 of 2006 (buildings in the tarwad building) are not<\/p>\n
suitable and needed for the residential occupation by the<\/p>\n
landlord. Mr.Paikaday would refer to the judgment of this<\/p>\n
court in Ramachandran Nair v. Gopinathan,<\/a> 2003(2) KLT<\/p>\n
694 and argued that it is not for the tenant to decide or<\/p>\n
dictate whether a building is suitable for the use of the<\/p>\n
landlord in the instant case.    The buildings sought to be<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                             – 19 –\n<\/p>\n
\nevicted are the tarwad house of the landlord where the<\/p>\n
landlord’s father and grandfather resided, the landlord was<\/p>\n
born and brought up and other small structures put up in<\/p>\n
close proximity of the tarwad building.\n<\/p>\n
     10. Mr.Paikaday would argue that the tenants are<\/p>\n
taking advantage of a lone sentence in the cross<\/p>\n
examination of PW1, an octogenarian to argue that room<\/p>\n
No.1227 in Ward No. X (the building which is subject matter<\/p>\n
of Ext.B16) was got vacated and sold away.     The evidence<\/p>\n
of PW1 is to be read and appreciated as a whole and it has<\/p>\n
been clearly stated by PW1 that none of the line rooms in<\/p>\n
Parappilly Angadi (relating to Ext.B16 also) was ever got<\/p>\n
vacated.     The commissioner’s report is very clear to the<\/p>\n
effect that a tenant by name Peter is staying in the building<\/p>\n
for the past 50 years and to this commission report no<\/p>\n
objections were filed by the tenant.     Lastly Mr.Paikaday<\/p>\n
submitted that the idea of only the tarwad building being<\/p>\n
surrendered and the buildings occupied by the other tenants<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwho are conducting petty trades not being surrendered will<\/p>\n
cause great inconvenience. The buildings where trade is<\/p>\n
being conducted by the revision petitioners are actually on<\/p>\n
the back courtyard of the tarwad building and the access to<\/p>\n
those buildings is directly through the tarwad building. In<\/p>\n
the family of the youngest son of the landlord who proposes<\/p>\n
to reside in the building once surrender is obtained, there<\/p>\n
are grown up children including a girl and a peaceful life will<\/p>\n
not be possible in the tarwad house with the traders in the<\/p>\n
courtyard passing through the corridors of the tarwad<\/p>\n
house.\n<\/p>\n
     11. As for the apprehensions of Mr.Unnikrishnan that<\/p>\n
the idea of the landlord is to sell off the building or to let out<\/p>\n
the same to others on higher rent. Mr.Paikaday would refer<\/p>\n
to subsection (12) of Section 11 and submit that the<\/p>\n
landlord is ready to suffer any direction which this court may<\/p>\n
pass in the context of such apprehensions of the tenants.<\/p>\n
     12. We have very anxiously considered the rival<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 21 –\n<\/p>\n
\nsubmissions        addressed at the Bar in the light of the<\/p>\n
relevant statutory provisions and the judicial precedents<\/p>\n
cited at the Bar. The jurisdiction in which we are presently<\/p>\n
sitting is revisional in nature. This court in revision is not<\/p>\n
expected ordinarily to reappraise the evidence        for the<\/p>\n
purpose of substituting our conclusions of fact for the<\/p>\n
conclusions arrived at by the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority which under the statutory scheme is the final<\/p>\n
court on facts. The landlord petitioner in the RCP was a<\/p>\n
retired employee of the postal department and at the time<\/p>\n
of institution of the RCP he was residing in a rented<\/p>\n
premises on the back side of a Typewriting Institute which<\/p>\n
was being conducted by his wife. The buildings which are<\/p>\n
subject matter of the RCP are his tarwad building, where his<\/p>\n
father and grandfather resided and he himself was born and<\/p>\n
brought up. His marriage took place while he was residing<\/p>\n
there. The Appellate Authority believed his version that if<\/p>\n
the temporary partitions effected by the tenants are<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                                – 22 –\n<\/p>\n
\nremoved the building will come to have all the facilities for<\/p>\n
residential life. It is clear that the Appellate Authority has<\/p>\n
taken into account the sentimental attachment of the<\/p>\n
landlord towards the building.         In our opinion also the<\/p>\n
sentimental attachment which one may have towards a<\/p>\n
particular building itself may arouse a need in his mind to<\/p>\n
occupy that particular building.           We notice that the<\/p>\n
Honourable Supreme Court had in Ram Dulary Bhai and<\/p>\n
another v. Madanlal Bajaj (1998) 8 SCC 504 considered and<\/p>\n
accepted the bonafides of a landlord’s sentiment based<\/p>\n
need. In the instant case it is not just a sentiment based<\/p>\n
need that has been recognised by the Appellate Authority,<\/p>\n
but a genuine need since the landlord was at the relevant<\/p>\n
time residing in a rented building. This court remanded the<\/p>\n
case to the Rent Control Court mainly to decide whether the<\/p>\n
rent control petition is liable to fail by virtue of the operation<\/p>\n
of the first proviso to subsection (3) of Section 11.         The<\/p>\n
contention raised by the tenants was that the landlord was<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 23 –\n<\/p>\n
\nhaving another building of his own which has 14 line rooms<\/p>\n
at Parappilly Bazar with actual possession over four such<\/p>\n
line rooms. Ext. A46 series of documents will show that 10<\/p>\n
line rooms were sold and the recitals in these documents<\/p>\n
are clear to the effect that the purchasers are none other<\/p>\n
than the tenants who were in occupation of the rooms for<\/p>\n
the past four decades. Ext.C2 commission report will show<\/p>\n
that the other remaining four rooms continue to be under<\/p>\n
the possession of tenants for the past more than four<\/p>\n
decades.      In fact, before this court the argument of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the revision petitioners was mainly with<\/p>\n
reference to building having old door No.1227 and present<\/p>\n
door No.IX\/569 the building which is subject matter of<\/p>\n
Ext.B16. True, the landlord in his oral evidence has stated<\/p>\n
that the above building was got vacated and sold by him.<\/p>\n
But we are convinced that the above statement of the<\/p>\n
landlord was the slip of the tongue of an octogenarian since<\/p>\n
C2 commission report dated 7-7-2001 will show that that<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 24 –\n<\/p>\n
\nbuilding was for the past 50 years under the possession of a<\/p>\n
tenant by name Peter. Therefore even that building cannot<\/p>\n
be taken into account for the purpose of the first proviso to<\/p>\n
subsection (3) of Section 11 since the first proviso would<\/p>\n
operate only when the landlord is having vacant possession<\/p>\n
of a building of his own. We do not find any warrant for<\/p>\n
interfering with the Appellate Authority’s finding that the<\/p>\n
rent control petition is not liable to fail due to the operation<\/p>\n
of the first proviso to subsection (3) of Section 11. Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, we are of the view that the landlord has special<\/p>\n
reasons for insisting on getting possession of the buildings<\/p>\n
which are subject matter of these revision petitions which<\/p>\n
take in mostly the tarwad building which is the only<\/p>\n
substantial residential building which fit enough to be<\/p>\n
occupied by a person of the landlord’s social and financial<\/p>\n
status.\n<\/p>\n
     13. It is now necessary to consider whether the death<\/p>\n
of the original landlord on 8-2-2007 about an year after the<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 25 –\n<\/p>\n
\nrent control revision petitions were filed before this court is<\/p>\n
a subsequent event that completely eclipses the need. The<\/p>\n
only rule of civil law as stated by the Hon. Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal<\/a> (2002(2) SCC 242) is<\/p>\n
that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date<\/p>\n
of the institution of the suit and therefore, the decree in a<\/p>\n
suit should be in accordance with the rights of the parties as<\/p>\n
they stood at the commencement of the list. It is clear in<\/p>\n
this case that the petitioner in the RCP was entitled for right<\/p>\n
as on the date of the Rent Control Petition. The question<\/p>\n
which immediately arises is whether by reason of his death,<\/p>\n
the relief that he had claimed in the RCP has become<\/p>\n
inappropriate or impossible to be granted. But, the case of<\/p>\n
the original landlord was that the building is required not for<\/p>\n
leading a solitary life but instead for his younger son and<\/p>\n
family can also reside along with him. It is customary in<\/p>\n
Syrian Christian community to which the petitioner in the<\/p>\n
RCP belonged that the family house is given to the youngest<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 26 –\n<\/p>\n
\nson and the parents also reside along with him in the family<\/p>\n
house cared and protected by the youngest son. Even in the<\/p>\n
statement of facts forming part of the Revision Petition, the<\/p>\n
tenants have stated that the need of the landlord was to<\/p>\n
have a residence not only for the landlord but, also for his<\/p>\n
family. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners was<\/p>\n
not in a position to assert before us that the youngest son of<\/p>\n
the landlord who appeared before us for clarifying the<\/p>\n
confessions regarding Ext.B16 building is possessed of any<\/p>\n
residential building of his own. Even otherwise it will be<\/p>\n
unjust to deprive the legal heirs of the deceased landlord of<\/p>\n
the benefits of an eviction order passed in favour of their<\/p>\n
father on valid grounds after a long drawn out legal battle.<\/p>\n
The delay of 23 years that has occurred in the final disposal<\/p>\n
of their case is not attributable to the original landlord or his<\/p>\n
legal heirs, the present landlords.\n<\/p>\n
     14. Remand order was passed by this Court mainly to<\/p>\n
consider the question whether the first proviso to sub<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                              – 27 –\n<\/p>\n
\nSection 3 of section 11 will have application in this case in<\/p>\n
view of the apparent position revealed by Ext.B16 that the<\/p>\n
landlord is in possession of a line building of three rooms.<\/p>\n
We are not prepared to read the statement of the landlord<\/p>\n
in a part of his evidence that the above building was sold off<\/p>\n
by the landlord on obtaining vacant possession from the<\/p>\n
tenant. Ext.A46 series of ten sale deeds were produced by<\/p>\n
the landlord claiming them to be the deeds relating to all<\/p>\n
the sales conducted by him. We gave opportunity to the<\/p>\n
tenant also to produce any document which will show that<\/p>\n
the building covered by Ext.B16 was sold by the landlord as<\/p>\n
a vacant building. The tenant was unable to produce any<\/p>\n
document. The learned counsel for the tenant stuck on to<\/p>\n
the stand that in the teeth of the admission by the landlord<\/p>\n
in oral evidence further evidence need not be insisted upon.<\/p>\n
We are inclined to accept the explanation by Mathai M.<\/p>\n
Paikeday that the so called admission of PW1, an<\/p>\n
octogenarian was just a slip of his tongue and that the<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 28 –\n<\/p>\n
\nbuilding covered by Ext.B16 continues to be under the<\/p>\n
possession of the tenant. Ext.C2 supports the above<\/p>\n
explanation and significantly to Ext.C2, the tenant did not<\/p>\n
file any objection at all.\n<\/p>\n
      15. Once it is found that the need of the landlord is<\/p>\n
bona fide and that the Rent Control Petition is not liable to<\/p>\n
be rejected due to the operation of the first proviso to sub<\/p>\n
section 3 of section 11, then the question for consideration<\/p>\n
is only whether the tenant is entitled to the protection of the<\/p>\n
second proviso to sub section 3 of section 11. Regarding this<\/p>\n
the finding has all along be concurrent that the tenants were<\/p>\n
not successful in establishing that they are entitled for the<\/p>\n
protection of the second proviso to sub section 3 of section<\/p>\n
11. The result, therefore, necessarily has to be that the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Revision Petitions shall fail.\n<\/p>\n
      16. The result is that all the revision petitions fail and<\/p>\n
stand dismissed. However, the Execution Court is directed<\/p>\n
not to order and effect delivery of the buildings in question<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                              – 29 –\n<\/p>\n
\ntill 31-01-2011 subject to the following conditions.<\/p>\n
      1) The revision petitioner in RCR No. 140 of 2006 shall<\/p>\n
pay occupational charges to the landlord with effect from 1-<\/p>\n
3-2010 at Rs.250\/- per mensem. The revision petitioner in<\/p>\n
RCR No. 141 of 2006 shall similarly pay at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.300\/- per mensem. The revision petitioner in RCR No.<\/p>\n
196 of 2006 shall similarly pay at the rate of Rs.250\/- per<\/p>\n
mensem. The revision petitioner in RCR No. 171 of 2006<\/p>\n
shall pay at the rate of Rs.100\/- per mensem. Similarly, the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner in RCR No. 164 of 2006 shall pay at the<\/p>\n
rate of Rs.300\/- per mensem.        The revision petitioner in<\/p>\n
RCR No. 177 of 2006 will pay at the rate of Rs.325\/- per<\/p>\n
mensem. The revision petitioner in RCR No. 166 of 2006<\/p>\n
shall pay at the rate of Rs.150\/- per mensem. The revision<\/p>\n
petitioner in RCR No. 179 of 2006 shall pay at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.150\/- per mensem. The revision petitioner in RCR No.<\/p>\n
194 of 2006 shall pay at the rate of Rs.100\/- per mensem.<\/p>\n
The revision petitioner in RCR No. 197 of 2006 shall pay at<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                               – 30 –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe rate of Rs.125\/- per mensem. The revision petitioner in<\/p>\n
RCR No. 169 of 2006 shall pay at the rate of Rs.150\/- per<\/p>\n
mensem. The revision petitioner in RCR No. 168 of 2006<\/p>\n
shall pay at the rate of Rs.250\/- per mensem. The revision<\/p>\n
petitioner in RCR No. 167 of 2006 shall similarly pay at the<\/p>\n
rate of Rs.300\/- per mensem. The revision petitioner in RCR<\/p>\n
No. 170 of 2006 shall pay at the rate of Rs.300\/- per<\/p>\n
mensem.\n<\/p>\n
     2). There will be yet another condition. The revision<\/p>\n
petitioner in all the cases shall file affidavit before the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court or the Execution Court as the case may be,<\/p>\n
under taking to give peaceful surrender of the buildings in<\/p>\n
their possession to the youngest son of PW1, the original<\/p>\n
petitioner in the RCP on or before 31-01-2011. Through the<\/p>\n
affidavits the revision petitioners will undertake to discharge<\/p>\n
arrears of rent which has already accrued in respect of the<\/p>\n
buildings at the original rates till 31-01-2010 within one<\/p>\n
month from the date of the filing of the affidavit and will pay<\/p>\n
RCR. Nos. 166\/06 etc.\n<\/p>\n
                             – 31 –\n<\/p>\n
\noccupational charges at the rates stipulated above as and<\/p>\n
when the same falls due. The affidavits shall be filed within<\/p>\n
three weeks from today. It is clarified that unless affidavits<\/p>\n
are filed on time the petitioners will not be entitled for the<\/p>\n
benefit of time granted as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                        C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
\nksv\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 166 of 2006() 1. BRIJEETH, … Petitioner 2. OUSEPH, DO. DO. 3. THOMAS, DO. DO. Vs 1. KOCHANTHONY, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON For Respondent :SRI.MATHAI M PAIKADAY(SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBrijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-06T18:54:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-06T18:54:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5536,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-06T18:54:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-06T18:54:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-06T18:54:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010"},"wordCount":5536,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010","name":"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-06T18:54:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brijeeth-vs-kochanthony-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Brijeeth vs Kochanthony on 5 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10312\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}