High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 01 KL CK 2728

Shekkeer vs Ratheesh

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 30 January 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Soumen Sen, C.J · Syam Kumar V.M., J
CASE NUMBER
RCREV. NO. 26 OF 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 401 words

Soumen Sen, C. J.

We have heard Mr. G. Sreekumar (Chelur), learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2.

The revision petitioner assails the judgment of the appellate authority affirming the order of the rent control court in proceedings initiated for eviction of the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of reasonable requirement.

3.

We have carefully perused the order of the rent control court as well as the judgment of the appellate authority. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the respondent has a bona fide need for the premises in question, consequent upon the injury suffered by him while working in the Merchant Navy, and that he intends to settle at Kodungallur, where the subject property is situated.

4.

The law is well settled that unless the concurrent findings of fact are shown to be perverse, the revisional court shall not interfere with such findings. Mere possibility of the revisional court taking a different view on the facts and circumstances of the case would not justify interference with the concurrent findings, once such findings are found to be a possible view based on the evidence on record.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to vacate the premises in question on such reasonable terms and conditions. Learned counsel prayed for one year’s time with conditions that may be fixed by the execution court.

6.

While we are not entertaining the revision petition, we observe that it would be open to the petitioner to approach the execution court with a similar prayer, and it would be for the execution court to decide with regard to any time period that may be allowed to him, on such terms and conditions, only after hearing the respondent.

7.

Accordingly, the rent control revision is disposed of.

The first sentence in paragraph No. 5 of the order dated 30.01.2026 in R.C. Rev. No. 26 of 2026 is suo motu replaced by the sentence “The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to vacate the premises in question on such reasonable terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper”, as per order dated 06.03.2026 in OP(RC) No. 53 of 2026.

The said order shall form part of the order dated 30.01.2026 in R.C. Rev. No. 26 of 2026, as per the order dated 06.03.2026 in OP (RC) No. 53 of 2026.