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

1983 Supreme(Ker) 13

K.K.NARENDRAN
PARAMESWARAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
CHELLAPPAN PILLAI – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The respondent-tenant in a petition for eviction under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965, for short the Act, is the petitioner in the civil revision. The petition for eviction was filed by the respondent herein. The building belongs to his son and the nephew. According to the respondent, as per the sale deed (Ext. A8) he has the right to collect the rent and of residence in the building. The petitioner-tenant in his objections Bled to the petition for eviction raised a contention that the respondent cannot file the petition for eviction without the previous written consent of the landlord and the recitals in the sale deed will not amount to such a written consent and will not empower him to file the petition for eviction,

2. The Rent Control Court found that the authorisation in Ext. A8 can be treated as a consent insisted by S.11(16) of Act 2 of 1965 and hence, even in the absence of Ext. A7, the respondent can maintain the petition for eviction. Accordingly, the petition for eviction was allowed by the Rent Control Court. The petitioner filed an "appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority held that only a person


















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