SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Ker) 302

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.M.JAMES
Mathai Antony – Appellant
Versus
Abraham – Respondent


Judgment :-

Radhakrishnan, J.

Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for by respondent landlord under section 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court dismissed the petition. On appeal by the landlord Appellate Authority allowed eviction under section 11(4)(v) of the Act, the legality of which is under challenge in this revision.

2. The tenanted premises was let out to respondent on 30-1-81 on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-. Landlord has provided electric connection to the shop room. As per the terms of the rent deed that tenant has to pay rent on the first of every month and also to pay the electricity charges. Rent was kept in arrears, so also the electricity charges to the Board. Due to the non-user of the premises the value and utility of the building was also reduced materially and permanently. Further due to the failure to pay electricity charges the Electricity Board disconnected the supply of electricity and later dismantled the equipments. Landlord had also filed OS.90/96 for recovery of rent. Later the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was made applicable to Thanneermukkom Village, consequently he filed RCP.41/90 under section 11(2)











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top