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

2004 Supreme(Ker) 625

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.M.JAMES
A. K. Ramayyan – Appellant
Versus
K. Rajagopal – Respondent


ORDER

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Tenant is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought for under S.11(3),11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii), 11(4)(v) and 11(8) of Act 2 of 1965. Rent Control Court allowed eviction under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act and the rest of the grounds were rejected. Tenant took up the matter in appeal against the finding underS.11(4)(ii) by filing RCA. 64 of 1994. Landlord did not file an appeal initially, but later filed a cross appeal on 28-08-2002 challenging the findings under S.11(3), 11(8) and 11(4)(i) of Act 2 of 1965. Cross appeal was filed with apetition for condonation of delay of 7 years, 7 months and 18 days. Objection was filed by the tenant against the petition for condonation of delay. Delay was condoned and cross appeal was entertained and appeal and cross appeal were heard together by the Appellate Authority. Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. Appellate Authority also allowed the cross appeal to the extent of allowing claim underS.11(8) of the Act. In short, Appellate Authority has ordered eviction underS.11(4)(ii) and 11(8) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same this revision petition has been preferred.










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