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

2000 Supreme(Ker) 669

P.K.IYER BALASUBRAMANYAN, T.M.HASSAN PILLAI
Xavier – Appellant
Versus
Krishnakumari – Respondent


ORDER

P.K. Balasubramanyan

1. These revisions are filed by the tenants of two residential buildings situated adjacent to one another. The landlord sought eviction of the buildings on the ground that she bona fide needed the buildings for her own occupation. The claim was resisted by the tenants. The tenants, in addition to questioning the bona fide need set up by the landlord, pleaded that they were entitled to protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court upheld the bona fide need set up by the landlord. The Rent Control Court also found that the tenants have not established that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Court therefore ordered eviction. The tenants filed appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, on a reconsideration of the relevant materials, came to the conclusion that the bona fide need set up by the landlord has been proved and that the tenants have not established that they are entitled to the protection of the second proviso to S.11(3) of the Act. Thus, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order for eviction





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