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

1998 Supreme(Ker) 127

P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN
Mathew – Appellant
Versus
Gilbert – Respondent


Judgment :-

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The tenant is the petitioner in this petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The landlord filed an application for eviction under sub-ss.2,3,4(ii) and 4(v) of S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority found that the rent was in arrears certainly from the year 1982 onwards and possibly even earlier and that possibility depending upon the decree in O.S.799 of 1983. Before the revisional court it was argued that the decree in O.S.799 of 1983 was reversed in appeal and that suit was dismissed. The Revisional Authority took note of that argument and found that even if the period covered by that suit were to be excluded, this was a case where the rent was clearly in arrears. I see no jurisdictional error committed by any of the authorities in coming to the conclusion that the landlord was entitled to an order for eviction under S.11(2) of the Act. No interference is called for with that order in this proceeding under Art.227 of the Constitution.

2. The claim for eviction under S.11(4) (v) of the Act was made by the landlord on the ground that 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