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

1990 Supreme(Ker) 521

K.P.RADHAKRISHNA MENON
Muhammed Shaheer – Appellant
Versus
Nanu Vidyadharan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J.

1. The short question arising for consideration in these appeals is this : Are the defendants in the suits from out of which these appeals arise, who admittedly are claiming the benefit of S.106 of The Kerala Land Reforms Act, entitled to have the question relating to the said tenancy referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the K. L. R. Act.

2. Before we go into the merits of this point, it is necessary to understand the content of S.106. S.106 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law, or in any contract, or in any order or decree of court, where on any land leased for commercial or industrial purpose, the lessee has constructed buildings for such commercial or industrial purpose before the 20th May, 1967, he shall not be liable to be evicted from such land, but shall be liable to pay rent under the contract of tenancy, and such rent shall be liable to be varied every twelve years. On a reading of this section it can be seen that it is a code by itself. That means the rights of the parties are to be determined only with reference to the provisions contained in this Section. That is the intention of t





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