IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23848 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.549/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MOHANDAS, S/O.MANI, PLACHUVATTIL, VAIKOM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ELIZABETH GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE, AGED 59, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADUVILA VILLAGE, PADINJATTINCHERRY PADINJARE MURI KARA, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. ROSEMOL K.GEORGE, D/O.GEORGE, AGED 28, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADUVILA VILLAGE, PADINJATTINCHERRY PADINJARE MURI KARA, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 3. RAIMOL.K.GEORGE, D/O.GEORGE, AGED 25, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADUVILA VILLAGE, PADINJATTINCHERRY PADINJARE MURI KARA, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.23848 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by additional defendant No.3 in O.S.No.549 of 2001 of the court of learned Munsiff, Vaikom. He is facing a threat of delivery of suit property where he is allegedly conducting a workshop, on 31-07-2010. Seeking postponement of delivery he has filed this writ petition. Respondents are legal representatives of deceased original plaintiff who sued petitioner and other defendants for eviction from the suit property claiming that petitioner and others are tenants of the suit property. Petitioner claimed that there was no such landlord-tenant relationship after 1995 when the original plaintiff executed Ext.B1, agreement for sale in favour of petitioner and others agreeing to sell the property for a total consideration of Rs.50,000/- and receiving Rs.30,000/- by way of advance. Counter claim made by petitioner on the strength of Ext.B1, alleged agreement for sale did not find favour with the trial and appellate court. Petitioner is now trying his luck in the second appeal pending in this court with an application to condone the delay. In the W.P.(C).No.23848 of 2010 2 meantime, respondents are trying to take delivery of the property as above stated. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be given sometime so that he could seek appropriate relief from this court in the second appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated and also taking into account the fact that petitioner is running a workshop in the suit property I am inclined to direct that delivery of teh property shall stand in abeyance for a period of two weeks from this day subject to conditions. Resultantly this writ petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Delivery of the suit property scheduled on 31-07-2010 will stand adjourned to a day after two weeks from this day subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioner shall deposit the entire rent arrears if any due under the decree in the executing court for payment to the respondents (without prejudice to the contentions raised by petitioner in the second appeal) within a week from this day. W.P.(C).No.23848 of 2010 3 (b) Petitioner shall on or before 31-07-2010 filed an affidavit in the executing court undertaking that in case he is not able to get an order of stay from the second appeal in the meantime he shall vacate the premises on the expiry of a period of two weeks granted hereby. THOMAS P JOSEPH JUDGE Sbna/ W.P.(C).No.23848 of 2010 4 W.P.(C).No.23848 of 2010 5