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

1984 Supreme(Ker) 148

BALAKRISHNA MENON, JOHN MATHEW
CHANDRIKA AMMA – Appellant
Versus
MOHAMMED – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The question that is referred for decision by a Division Bench is whether on the mere filing of a revision petition before this Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its dismissal at the admission stage the tenant could still bargain for another one month provided under S 11(2)(c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The landlord, the revision petitioner, filed a petition for eviction under S. 1.1(2)(b) of the Act on the ground that rent is in arrears, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court. However, three months' time to pay the arrears was granted by the order of the Rent Control Court under S 11(2)(c) of the Act. The tenant, did not pay the arrears, but filed an appeal The appeal was dismissed. But the appellate authority granted another two months' time for depositing the arrears. The respondent did not deposit the arrears, but filed a revision petition under S.20 of the Act before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the revision petition, but granted another two months' time from 23-1-1978, i.e. the date of dismissal of the revision petition. Without paying the arrears,






















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