High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2021-12-21Disposed of the Original Petition by directing ...

K.S. Antony and K.S. Benny v. Kongorpilly S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam No. 168

Case / Petition Number:O.P.(RC) No.55 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
P. G. Ajithkumar
Judgment Date: 2021-12-21
Court Decision / Holding: The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), North Paravur to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 within three months from certification of the judgment. It held that the execution petition E.P.No.156 of 2020 could not be reopened, but noted that if the ex parte eviction is set aside, the petitioners may seek restoration of possession under Section 144 CPC. The court also observed that the petition schedule building eviction must be revisited only through proper court processes and not by premature reopening of the execution petition.
Final Disposition: Disposed of the Original Petition by directing the Rent Control Court to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 within three months; refused to reopen E.P.156/2020; allowed potential recourse under Section 144 CPC if ex parte eviction is set aside.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.S. Antony
K.S. Benny

Respondents

Kongorpilly S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam No.168, Kongorpilly Kara, Alangad Village, Paravur Taluk (represented by President, T.N. Babu)
Kongorpilly S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam No.168, Kongorpilly Kara, Alangad Village, Paravur Taluk (represented by Secretary, Hymavathy)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Deepa Narayanan
• Shri.K.Sujai Sathian
• Smt.Asha Mariam Mathews

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri A.N.Rajan Babu

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court judgment, rendered in O.P.(RC) No.55 of 2021, concerns a supervisory challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by two tenants (K.S. Antony and K.S. Benny) against an eviction order in R.C.P. No.23 of 2019 passed by the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), North Paravur, under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The eviction petition was decided ex parte in July 2020 in favour of Kongorpilly S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam No.168. The tenants moved Exts. P4 and P5 seeking to set aside the ex parte order and to condone delay in filing those applications. They also sought a direction to the Munsiff’s court to reopen E.P. No.156 of 2020, which had been closed in March 2021. The High Court stayed the execution proceedings earlier and, after hearing, directed the Rent Control Court to dispose of Exts. P4 and P5 within three months from certification of the judgment. It held that reopening E.P.156/2020 cannot be granted, but allowed the possibility of restoration under Section 144 CPC if the ex parte eviction is set aside. The decision emphasizes timely adjudication in rent-control matters and clarifies limits of Article 227 scrutiny.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(v)Constitution of India, Article 227Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 144

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Exts.P4 and P5 (IA Nos.104/2021 and 105/2021) must be disposed of expeditiously by the Rent Control Court, as delay would cause irreparable injury and prejudice, given they have already faced eviction and the shop’s disruption. They urge supervisory intervention under Article 227 to secure timely adjudication and restoration if warranted, and argue for reopening E.P.156/2020 only if necessary under law, including possible remedies under Section 144 CPC upon setting aside the ex parte order.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents filed a counter and maintained that the ex parte eviction order should not be disturbed by directing disposal of pending IAs; they submit that reopening E.P.156/2020 cannot be countenanced since the petition schedule building has already been affected, and that Article 227 cannot be used to micromanage process-discretion vested in the Rent Control Court.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chathoth Punnaroth Nanu and others v. Nazeer and others	2021 (6) KHC 813 (DB)	Mentioned Only	Cited in the judgment to acknowledge a procedural remedy under Section 144 CPC if the ex parte eviction is set aside; not treated as controlling authority in the instant dispute.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.S. Antony and K.S. Benny v. Kongorpilly S.N.D.P. Sakha Yogam No. 168 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** ## **O.P.(RC) NO. 55 OF 2021** **SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF I.A.NOS.104 AND 105 OF 2021 IN R.C.P.NO.23 OF 2019 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF), NORTH PARAVUR** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 K.S.ANTONY AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.SANI, KANAPPILLY, KODUVAZHANGA, NEERICODE VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **2 K.S. BENNY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.SANI, KANAPPILLY, KODUVAZHANGA, NEERICODE VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. DEEPA NARAYANAN SHRI.K.SUJAI SATHIAN SMT.ASHA MARIAM MATHEWS** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 KONGORPILLY S.N.D.P.SAKHA YOGAM NO. 168, KONGORPILLY KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT T.N. BABU, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. NATARAJAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, NEERICODE KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK - 683 511.** 2 ## O.P.(RC) No.55 of 2021 **2 KONGORPILLY S.N.D.P. SAKHA YOGAM NO. 168, KONGORPILLY KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HYMAVATHY, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. SISHUPALAN, ALATTU HOUSE, KONGORPILLY, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK - 683 511.** **BY ADV SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU** **THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 O.P.(RC) No.55 of 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Ajithkumar, J. This Original Petition was filed by the respondentstenants in R.C.P.No.23 of 2019 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), North Paravur, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The rent control petition was filed by the respondents seeking eviction of the petitioners under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petition was allowed on 22.07.2020, as per Ext.P2 order. An execution petition was filed by the respondents before the Munsiff Court, North Paravur, a copy of the petition is Ext.P3. Since the order of eviction was passed exparte, the petitioners filed Ext.P4, I.A.No.104 of 2021 for setting aside the said exparte order and Ext.P5, I.A.No.105 of 2021 for condonation of delay of 212 days in filing the former application. The petitioners seek a direction to the Rent Control Court to dispose of Exts.P4 and 4 O.P.(RC) No.55 of 2021 P5 applications within a time frame and for a further direction to the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur to reopen the execution petition, which was already closed. 3. The respondents entered appearance through Advocate A.N.Rajan Babu and filed a counter affidavit. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. When the matter came up for consideration on 07.04.2021, it was admitted and an interim order of stay of proceedings in the execution petition was granted. On 17.12.2021, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court disposed of the matter by giving a direction to the Rent Control Court regarding disposal of Exts.P4 and P5 applications. Before signing the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a request to list the matter as 'to be spoken to' today, since she omitted to make submission regarding the relief sought for in respect of E.P.No.156 of 2020. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and 5 O.P.(RC) No.55 of 2021 the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The question to be considered is whether in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a direction for disposal of Exts.P4 and P5 applications within a time frame is to be issued. Apart from the prayer for issuing such a direction to the Rent Control Court, the petitioners seek the relief of direction to the executing court, Munsiff's Court, North Paravur, to reopen the proceedings in E.P.No.156 of 2020 which was closed on 24.3.2021. 8. This Original Petition was filed on 07.04.2021. It is seen from Ext.P9 that delivery of the petition schedule shop room was effected as early as on 19.03.2021. It was after effecting delivery, the E.P. was closed, obviously, recording full satisfaction on 24.03.2021. In these circumstances, a prayer for a direction to the execution court to reopen the proceedings in E.P.No.156 of 2020 cannot be granted. 9. The apprehension of the petitioners is that owing to the delay in disposing Exts.P4 and P5 applications, they will 6 O.P.(RC) No.55 of 2021 be put to irreparable injury and loss having they been already ousted from the petition schedule building. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Rent Control Court to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 applications without any delay. Hence, we dispose of the Original Petition by directing the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), North Paravur to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 applications within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. We, however, point out that in the event of setting aside the exparte order of eviction, the petitioners have the right to move under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for getting back the possession of the shop room [See: **Chathoth Punnaroth Nanu and others v. Nazeer and others, 2021 (6) KHC 813 (DB)** ]. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 7 O.P.(RC) No.55 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 55/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION, R.C.P. NO. 23 OF 2019, FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 19.09.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2020 IN R.C.P.NO.23 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE MUSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.NO.156 OF 2020 IN R.C.P.NO.23 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 09.10.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, NORTH PARAVUR AS I.A.NO.104 OF 2021 IN RCP 23 OF 2019 TO SET ASIDE DATED 24.03.2021.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, NORTH PARAVUR AS I.A.NO.105/2021 IN R.C.P.23 OF 2019 TO CONDONE THE DELAY DATED 24.03.2021.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO REPROT OF AMIN DATED 24.03.2021 IN E.P. NO. 156 OF 2020 IN R.C.P. NO. 23 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **EXHIBIT P7** - **A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION E.A.NO. 53 OF 2021 IN E.P. NO. 156 OF 2020 IN** 8 ## O.P.(RC) No.55 of 2021 **R.C.P. NO. 23OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 24.03.2021.** ## **EXHIBIT P8** **A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 150 SQ.FEET BUILDING BEARING NO. XVI/110 OF ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** ## **EXHIBIT P9** **A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AMIN FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 19.03.2021, INVENTORY LIST DATED 20.03.2021, KYCHIT DATED 19.03.2021, COPY OF ORDER DT.19.03.2021.** ## **EXHIBIT P10** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2021 IN E.P.NO.156 OF 2020 IN RCP NO.23 OF 2019 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.** **EXHIBIT P11** **A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SHOPROOM, I.E.,150 SQ.FEET BUILDING BEARING NO.XVI/110 OF ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WHEREIN PETITIONERS WERE CONDUCTING SALE OF MEAT.**