ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.G.AJITHKUMAR
Chandran @ Chandu – Appellant
Versus
C H Meenakshi – Respondent
ORDER :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
I.A.No.1 of 2022
The petitioner filed R.C.Rev.No.359 of 2016, under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2016 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Vatakara in R.C.A.No.55 of 2015, an appeal filed under Section 18(1)(b) of the said Act against the order dated 16.02.2015 of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Vatakara in R.C.P.No.18 of 2014. The respondents herein-landlords, filed the said R.C.P. against the petitioner herein-tenant, under Section 11(3) of the Act, seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop room. The bona fide need projected in the R.C.P was that of the 5th respondent herein, who was examined as PW1, to start a churidar ready-made business and stitching unit in the petition schedule shop room.
2. The Rent Control Court found that the need projected in the R.C.P for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act is bona fide; the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act has no application; and the tenant is not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Before the Rent Control Court, th
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Fazalullah Khan v. M. Akbar Contractor (D) by LRs and others
Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
Mohammad Ahmad v. Atmaram Chauhan
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
Subair and others v. C.P. Kunhami @ Kunjhimariyam and another
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.