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