PAREED PILLAY
AMMINI – Appellant
Versus
AMMU – Respondent
1. Landlord filed eviction petition under S.11 (2) and 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Controller allowed the petition under S.11 (2) and rejected the claim under S.11 (8) of the Act. Tenant filed R.C.A. 52/77 challenging the findings against him and the landlord filed R.C.A. 66/77 challenging the finding under S.11 (8). Appellate authority dismissed R.C.A. 52/77 and allowed R.C.A. 66/77. Tenant filed R.C.R.P 41/77 against the order in R.C.A. 66/77. Pending the revision, tenant and landlord died and their respective legal representatives have been impleaded.
2. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the claim under S.11 (8) cannot be allowed as the building in their possession is separate from the building in the possession of the respondents. There is no force in the above contention as the tenant did not have such a case in his counter statement. In Ext. A2 notice it is stated that the tenant is in possession of the lean-to portion of the main building. In the reply notice Ext. A4 there is no denial of the above assertion. Revision petitioners and their predecessor did not produce any documentary evidence or oral
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.