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

2009 Supreme(Ker) 685

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Sasikumar – Appellant
Versus
R. C. R. P. No. 192 of 2009 – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:M.P. Madhavankutty, Advocate.

Judgment :

K. Surendra Mohan, J.

This is a tenants’ revision against an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court, Neyyantinkara, in R.C.P. No.15/2000 and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, R.C.A. No.31/2006.

2. The Rent Control Petition was filed in respect of two shop rooms occupied by the revision petitioners/tenants. One tenant is conducting a medical store while the other is conducting a bakery. The landlady claimed eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent (S.11(2)(b)) and bona fide own occupation (S.11(3)) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short. The Rent Control Court found that the ground under S.11(2)(b) was not available to the landlady for the reason that a notice of demand, as contemplated by the Section, had not been served on the tenants. The said finding has become final. Therefore, the only ground that survives is the ground under S.11(3).

3. According to the landlady, her husband is an air conditioner mechanic working in the Gulf. He has returned to his native place and he is unemployed now. The rooms, according to the landlady, were needed for starting






















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