Back
A. HARIPRASAD, P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
Abdu Rahiman – Appellant
Versus
Fathimma, W/O. Chekkumbatt Hamza Haji – Respondent
ORDER :
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
The revision petitioner is the petitioner in RCP No. 56/2013 on the file of the Rent Controller of Tirur and the respondents herein are the respondents in the above rent control petition (hereinafter revision petitioner is mentioned as petitioner and the respondents are mentioned as respondents respectively). The above rent control petition was filed by the petitioner under Secs. 11(3) and 11 (8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'Act, 1965').
2. The case of the landlord, in brief, is like this : The landlord is the owner of the petition schedule building. The respondents are in possession of the petition schedule property as legal heirs of deceased 'Hamza Haji'. Hamza Haji, the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the other respondents had taken the petition schedule property on lease in 1996 by fixing a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- and also on payment of Rs. 2,75,000/- as advance. According to the petitioner, the respondents kept the rent in arrears from February 2011 onwards. Hence, he requested Hamza Haji to vacate the room for starting a business in the petition schedule room. Since Hamza Haji refused to acce
Important points:No clear averments in the petition to the effect that the landlord is occupying a part of the building and the tenant is occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of t....
Point of law :Eviction of tenant - Bona fide need put forward by the landlord by itself is depending upon a contingency, namely, the final outcome of the civil suit mentioned above. Therefore in that....
Point of Law : Though the revisional power under Section 20 of the Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power con....
Point of Law - Appellate Authority held that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained
Landlords must prove bona fide need for eviction; tenants' failure to substantiate claims regarding income and available premises supports eviction orders under the Rent Control Act.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a bona fide need for eviction, the burden of proof on tenants, and the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.
Right to property, though not a fundamental right is still a constitutional right. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authorit....
Courts have a duty to ensure that there is no judicial contribution to delay.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
