LAWS(KER)-2022-7-288

JOLLY ABHILASH Vs. M.C. GEORGE

Decided On July 18, 2022
Jolly Abhilash Appellant
V/S
M.C. GEORGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging order of the Rent Control Revisional Authority (Additional District Judge- IV), Kottayam dtd. 24/2/2022 in RCRP No. 4 of 2021. The Revisional Authority, as per the said order, turned down the challenge to the common order of Principal Munsiff (Execution Court), Kottayam dismissed E.A. No. 4 of 2021.

(2.) E.A.No. 4 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner invoking the provisions of Sec. 47 and Rules 97 and 98 of order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in EP No. 166 of 2019 in R.C.P.No. 13 of 2018. The said execution petition was filed by the respondent who obtained an order of eviction under sec. 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against one Joby Sebastian. Ext.P1 is the order of eviction. In the execution petition, steps for delivery of the petition schedule building was taken out. The Amin deputed by the Execution Court for effecting delivery tried to execute the order. At that time, there arose obstruction. It was thereafter the petitioner claiming independent right over the petition schedule building filed E.A.No. 4 of 2021.

(3.) Contention of the petitioner is that the respondent by playing fraud upon the petitioner obtained the sale deed in respect of the petition schedule building in his favour. The petitioner was a domestic aid at the residence of the respondent. When she with the help of her mother who was working in Kuwait was taking steps for the purchase of petition schedule building, the respondent offered help and financial assistance to materialise the transaction. But by deceit and misrepresentation, the document was taken in his name. Thus the petitioner claimed that it is she who is the owner of the petition schedule building and entitled to continue in possession which she obtained following the execution of the sale deed. Thus, she maintained that the order of eviction was not executable and she was not liable to be dispossessed.