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

1998 Supreme(Ker) 231

P.A.MOHAMMAD, G.SIVARAJAN
Raghavan – Appellant
Versus
Raju – Respondent


Judgment :-

P.A.Mohammed, J.

The tenant in a rent control petition for eviction is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur passed under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent-landlord filed the application seeking to evict the petitioner-tenant from the petitioner schedule building under S.11(2)(b) and S.11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court has refused eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and thus, disallowed eviction under S.11(2)(b). However, the eviction was ordered on the ground of bonafide requirement under S.11(3) of the Act. As against the order of the Rent Control Court the tenant filed appeal under S.18 of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The order of the Rent Control Court under S.11(2)(b) has become final. Therefore, the substantial ground available for eviction before the Appellate Authority was under S.11(3). The Appellate Authority, after evaluating the evidence, agreed with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under S.11(3). Hence the present revision petition has been filed by the









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