PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, C.K.ABDUL REHIM
K. Mohanan – Appellant
Versus
Pottendavida Usman – Respondent
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
1. The tenant challenges in this revision under Section 20 the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 11(4)(iii). In fact the respondent/landlord invoked the ground of arrears of rent Section 11(2)(b) and the ground of bona fide need for own occupation under Section 11(3) also for evicting the tenant. Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was declined by the Rent Control Court and the said order has become final. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under Section 11(3). But, during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the tenant the person, for whom possession of the building was sought under Section 11(3), passed away. It was noticed by the Appellate Authority that, the need under Section 11(3) was not the need for personal occupation of the person who passed away alone, but occupation by the family members of him also. Hence permitting the landlord to amend the pleadings, the issue of ordering eviction under section 11(3) was relegated to the Rent Control Court.
2. It was on the basis of a building, which is referred to in the judgment of the Appella
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.