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