A building owner has filed a rent control petition with No 25/1983 (Rent Control Court, Kottayam) when the building owner was 48 years, the tenant denied the title of the owner and rent control court passed order on 24/10/1991 that as there is dispute of title the civil court only has jurisdiction.
The tenant had tried to do some modification in the building which the Landlord opposed and filed an injunction petition in 1997 in which the court ordered that the tenant can do only painting and whitewashing in the building, and no other work of permanent character can be done by the tenant in the building.
The Building Owner filed OS 200/1992 (Sub Court, Kottayam) and judgment was delivered on 11/6/1999 declaring that the building owner aught to have probated his title deed (his father’s will).
The Building Owner has field appeal with No AS 139/2000 (District Court, Kottayam) and judgment was delivered on 18/7/2003 finding the title of the building owner but remanding the case to the lower court for disposing the suit on any of the grounds mentioned in the rent control Act.
The building owner preferred appeal (FAO 158/2003) (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam) on that order of remand and the tenant preferred appeal (FAO 136/2005) (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam) against the finding that the building owners has title. Common judgment passed on 14/8/2005 confirming the title of the building owner and remanding the case for disposing on any of the ground mentioned in the rent control act with a direction to dispose of the case with in 3 months.
The tenant filed Special Leave Petition Before the Supreme Court of India SLP CC No 1918/2008 ; SLP No 4837/2008 which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 15/2/2008
The suit was heard in the lower court (OS 200/1992) (Sub Court, Kottayam) and passed order on 7/7/2011 finding the title of the building owner and finding that the own use claimed by the owner is bonafide. meanwhile the tenant had gone to the high court in a writ (WP(C) 43/1998 (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam) which was disposed of on 28/5/2008) claiming that his pleadings has to be amended (which was rejected by the high court).
Against the order of the lower court the tenant preferred an appeal (AS 192/2011) (District Court, Kottayam) mean while the building owner died on 16/5/2012 at the age of 78.
During this 30 years the building owner was shuttling from one court to another and from piller to post with no result.
The irony is that the tenant is occupying the building having 1800 sq. ft. for a meager rent of Rs 125 per month with amounts to Rs. 0.06 per sq. ft.
For this injustice the building owner has filed a Rent control petition for revision of rent (RCOP 34/2011) (Rent Control Court, Kottayam) which was stayed by the Kerala High Court on an order on OP (RC) 2410/2013 (High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam) stating that as there is a unsettled dispute over the title pending in the court as AS 192/2011. OP (RC) 2410/2013 ordered that RCOP 34/2011 can continue pending AS 192/2011. The High Court of Kerala on 14/08/2013 vacate the stay ordered in OP (RC) 2410/2013 on finding the fact that FAO 158 of 2003 and FAO 136 of 2008 was already ordered finding the title of the petitioner by HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI. On continuing the trial of RCP 34/2011 the trial court ordered the rent as Rs.10 per square feet in RCOP 34/2011. The tenant filed RCA 24/2014 and the building owner filled RCA 25/2014 common order enhanced the rent to Rs. 30 per square feet. The tenant filed RCR 250/2016 and RCR 251/2016 before the High Court of Kerala against the order of the district court. RCR 250/2016 and RCR 251/2016 is ordered on 11/10/2018 by Justice Harilal. The tenants went to Supreme Court of India and filed Special Leave Petition Numbered as SLP (C) 6556 and 6557 of 2019 and is dismissed on 11/3/2019 upholding the order in RCR 250/2016 and RCR 251/2016.
Mean while the landlord had filed petition for arrears of rent RCP 11/2017 which is stayed by the Munciff on the ground that the matter is pending before the High Court. The building Owner filed a OP(RC) 109/2018 before the High court to vacate the order of stay. OPRC 109/2018 ordered in favour of building owner.
AS 192/2011 ordered in favour of the building owner finding the ground of own use. The tenant filed Regular Second Appeal RSA 1109/2016 before the High Court of Kerala. The same was heard by Justice Harilal but the order of the judgement not pronounced. Later the case was posted in regular list for further hearing.
From 1983 to 2019 the building owner is shuttling from one court to another. During these thirty six years the building owner is not getting any remedy for his legal battle in spite of his reverence to the judicial system from the court of law.
The tenant is very affluent and rich. The tenants are conducting Kumarakom Hotel, at Kottayam Gandhi Square. Initially taken on rent by Itty Chacko, thereafter his son T. C. Abraham conducted hotel, now his sons T. A. Thampan residing at Flat No. 2A-1, Century Towers Kottayam. Phone No. 9447014797 and worship at Solomon’s Portico and Sunny Abraham alias T.A. Sunny residing at Thyparambil House Kottayam and worship at Abundant Life, Kottayam Phone Number 9496375957 are conducting the case against the landlord in order to grab the property.
T. A. Thampan married Maya Thampan and has Son Joshwin Thampan and works as Chief Strategy Officer at AL Jassar LLC, Muscat, Oman.
T.A. Sunny alias Sunny Abraham married Sherley Sunny and has a daughter Chintu Sunny working at International Modern Hospital, Dubai as Clinical Audiologist and a Son Deepu Sunny who married Lija Mary Jacob and he is Assistant Director at EY (Ernst and Young).
All this happened at Kottayam, Kerala
Is this the type of justice the courts are rendering ?
Is Judiciary a farce ? A petition before the court if not settled finally and given a remedy within a reasonable time is a waste of time money and effort and make the Judiciary a mockery.
Will a sensible man come to judiciary for getting any remedy for any injustice he has faced ? Is it advisable to seek remedy in a court of law in India ?
Rented Building Owners Association Kerala 
You must be logged in to post a comment.