Bindu Vs. Moidu Haji

Bindu vs Moidu Haji

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 08, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1098653

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1098653
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Decided On: Nov 08, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bindu

Respondent

Moidu Haji

Advocate Shri. E. Narayanan

Excerpt

.....p7 orders passed by the rent control court, have filed this original petition.2. we heard learned counsel on both sides.3. it is clear from the pleadings that an ex-parte commission had inspected the premises and filed a report, produced as ext.p3. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the eviction is sought under sections 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the act, the tenants were entitled for notice before the inspection was conducted by the commissioner and they should have been given an opportunity to submit a work memo for noticing whatever matters the tenants wish to get noted by the commissioner. it is submitted that a perusal of the report will show that even the bare minimum details are not there. therefore, the court below was not right in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners.4. shri e. narayanan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that ext.p4 will show that the specific items the tenants wanted to be op(rc)3490/2013 -2- noticed by remission of the report are not clear.5. after hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that there is no harm in remitting the report to the same commissioner for noticing various points which the tenants may wish to get noticed.6. first of all, the commissioner has not given any notice to the tenants before conducting the inspection. therefore, there was no opportunity to the tenants to bring to the notice of the commissioner the various aspects.7. therefore, we set aside exts.p6 and p7. the rent control court is directed to remit the report, ext.p3 to the same commissioner and the commissioner will be asked to conduct a fresh inspection with notice to both sides. the bata for the commissioner will be paid by the petitioners. the petitioners will file a work memo with copy to the respondent. the original petition is disposed of as above. no costs. (t.r.ramachandran nair, judge) (b. kemal pasha, judge) kav/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA FRIDAY, THE8H DAY OF NOVEMBER201317TH KARTHIKA, 1935 OP (RC).No. 3490 of 2013 (O) ----------------------------- I.A.NOS.1783/2013 & 1784/2013 IN RCP NO.58/2012 ON THE FILE OF RENT CONTROL COURT - I, KOZHIKODE. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:-: --------------------------------------------- 1. BINDU, AGED44YEARS W/O.KILIYANKANDI KARUNAKARAN, KILYANKANDI HOUSE VALLIKUNNU VILLAGE, VALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM.

2. KILIYANKANDI VELAYUDHAN, AGED65YEARS S/O.KILIYANKANDI APPAN, KILYANKANDI HOUSE VALLIKUNNU VILLAGE, VALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM.

3. AMITH, AGED24YEARS S/O.KILIYANKANDI KARUNAKARAN, KILYANKANDI HOUSE VALLIKUNNU VILLAGE, VALLIKUNNU AMSOM DESOM THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE(MULLAKKARIYIL) SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:-: ------------------------------------------- MOIDU HAJI,, AGED66YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM, MANIYOTH HOUSE, PONMERI P.O. VIA VILYAPPALLI, PONMERI AMSOM DESAM, VATAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN PALANGATTU PATHAYA PURAYIL THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0811-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (RC).No. 3490 of 2013 (O) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED IN THE RCP NO.58/2012. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED IN THE RCP NO.58/2012. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED2505.2012 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT P3(A). A TRUE COPY FO THE ADDITIONAL REPORT DATED2805.2012 FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1784/13 IN RCP582012. EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1783/13 IN RCP582012. EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER

DATED1009.2013 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT IN I.A.NO.1784/13. EXHIBIT P7. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED1009.2013 BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT IN I.A.NO.1783/13. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------- //TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(R.C.) No. 3490 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DATEDTHIS THE8H DAYOF NOVEMBER, 2013 JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The tenants who are aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Rent Control Court, have filed this original petition.

2. We heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. It is clear from the pleadings that an ex-parte commission had inspected the premises and filed a report, produced as Ext.P3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the eviction is sought under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Act, the tenants were entitled for notice before the inspection was conducted by the Commissioner and they should have been given an opportunity to submit a work memo for noticing whatever matters the tenants wish to get noted by the Commissioner. It is submitted that a perusal of the report will show that even the bare minimum details are not there. Therefore, the court below was not right in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners.

4. Shri E. Narayanan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Ext.P4 will show that the specific items the tenants wanted to be OP(RC)3490/2013 -2- noticed by remission of the report are not clear.

5. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that there is no harm in remitting the report to the same Commissioner for noticing various points which the tenants may wish to get noticed.

6. First of all, the Commissioner has not given any notice to the tenants before conducting the inspection. Therefore, there was no opportunity to the tenants to bring to the notice of the Commissioner the various aspects.

7. Therefore, we set aside Exts.P6 and P7. The Rent Control Court is directed to remit the report, Ext.P3 to the same Commissioner and the Commissioner will be asked to conduct a fresh inspection with notice to both sides. The bata for the Commissioner will be paid by the petitioners. The petitioners will file a work memo with copy to the respondent. The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) kav/

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Bindu vs Moidu Haji Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair