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

2010 Supreme(Ker) 451

P. Kunhamu – Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar K – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:K.G. Gouri Sankar Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents:Bechu Kurian Thomas, Advocate.

Judgment :

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

1. The one and perhaps the only important issue which arises for decision in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is, whether the single Rent Control Petition instituted by the respondents for evicting the revision petitioners two tenants occupying two rooms in a larger building, on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act, is maintainable? The revision petitioner in RCR.189/2008 at the earliest opportunity itself raised the contention that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable in law as the landlord has instituted a single Rent Control Petition for evicting himself and another tenant, who were governed by two different tenancies. The above contention did not find favour with either the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the need which was projected by the landlord in the context of the ground under sub-section 3 of Section 11 was a bonafide one and that both the tenants, who were arrayed as co-respondents in the RCP were unsuccessful in establishing that they were eligible for the prot























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